Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD REPORTED Her Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follows:—

I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark of the Supplementary Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1969, a copy of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Seychelles) Order 1969, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Republic of South Africa of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Incomes) (South Africa) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Spain) Order 1969 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Swaziland) Order 1969 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the Right hon. Stephen Thomas Swingler, Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Planning Document

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the question of publication of the draft planning document has yet been decided.

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement about his further discussions with the National Economic Development Council on a draft planning document.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what plans he has for further discussions with the National Economic Development Council, regarding the formation and publication of the new National Plan.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what estimate he has made of the level of economic growth for 1969 and 1970;

(2) if he will make a further statement on the publishing of the recent planning document.

Mr. David Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what date a preliminary draft of the new national plan document will be laid before the House of Commons.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what


assumption his Department makes about the supply of labour and the level of aggregate demand when forecasting future increases in production capacity.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what estimate he has made of the level of economic growth for 1969 and 1970; and if he will make a statement;

(2) if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with the National Economic Development Council on a draft planning document.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will undertake to postpone the publication of the new National Plan until after the Budget statement.

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): The document which has been discussed in the National Economic Development Council will be published as a Green Paper on 26th February, when I hope to make a fuller statement.
The document discusses the prospects and problems for the economy up to 1972. Starting with the necessity for achieving and maintaining a substantial surplus on the balance of payments, it considers the prospects for growth, employment, regional development and the use of resources. It also outlines the contribution that industry will need to make both in improving the balance of payments and in increasing investment.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 6th February, it takes into account the views of industry as expressed in the N.E.D.C., but the assessment which it makes is the responsibility of the Government. It will provide the basis not only for general discussion but for more detailed consultations which are now to begin with key industries on ways in which the trade balance can be improved.

Mr. Marten: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to leak to the House, before it leaks to the Press, what is the estimated growth rate which will be shown in the document? Will Members of Parliament be able to see some of the papers which were put in on which

there was disagreement. I imagine that the document will have only agreed points.

Mr. Shore: The document to be put before the House will be substantially based on the successive discussions and documents that went to the N.E.D.C. This will provide the House with the information it wants and requires to continue its examination of planning and the prospects ahead. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman about the Press.

Mr. Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lively interest has been created by the advance publicity for the publication of the document? Can we take it from him that all parties connected with it are agreed to its full publication?

Mr. Shore: The document is published by the Government and contains their assessment of the period covered by the document. However, the N.E.D.C. was perfectly content that it should be published.

Mr. Biffen: Have the private sector figures been based on an expected growth rate indicated by the Government, or have the Government calculated the growth rate from the figures they have received from the private sector?

Mr. Shore: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this, but since this is a complicated matter at the heart of the argument concerning the factors relevant to growth, it would be better if he waited until he saw the Green Paper next Wednesday.

Mr. Howell: Can we be reassured by the Minister that when publication comes next week it will still not be too late for ideas and views from the House to influence the basic policy assumptions in the document? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that if the last National Plan had been presented a bit earlier to the House and the public it might have been possible for hon. Members to point out that the planners had omitted to plan for the balance of payments, and that there were other such omissions?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that in making its views known the House will contribute to the continuing planning process. As


for the rigidity, as it were, of the document, I would only make the point that it is published as a Green Paper.

Mr. Higgins: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen)? The answer must be one or the other, or both. Can he tell us whether the plans have been based on previous input-output tables, or those which the House has not yet had an opportunity to see?

Mr. Shore: The only answer I can give the hon. Gentleman at present is that we have obviously had to take a view about growth based on past experience, but that we are carrying out a series of consultations with industry which will enable us to arrive at firmer figures than we now have.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that an important aspect of the presentation of the Green Paper is that we be given a chance to look at it at the same time as the discussions are taking place on it? What has offended a number of hon. Members is that certain privileged positions are granted to those outside the House.

Mr. Shore: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this. The real difficulty, as I think he knows, is that if we have a body like the N.E.D.C. set up precisely for this kind of consultative purpose, it is almost inevitable that at some stage there will be discussion first with it before the discussion is taken further forward into the forum of the House of Commons and elsewhere. Therefore, I cannot help my hon. Friend on that matter, but, as I have already said, it is a Green Paper and we expect a great deal of discussion on it.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman referred just now to past experience. Is it too late for him, even now, to be warned by it and throw the filthy thing away?

Mr. Shore: I do not know which past experience I am being invited to look at. If it is the experience from 1951 to 1964, when there was so little economic planning in this country, I would not wish to repeat that experience.

Mr. Bagier: My right hon. Friend referred in his original Answer to growth and development policy. Does he agree that in order to get the sort of growth the Government envisage it is important that they carry on with the development policy they are now pursuing?

Mr. Shore: The development area policy which I think is in my hon. Friend's mind is a very important part of the Government's total economic strategy and will make a contribution to national economic growth, which, in the absence of such policies, would be slower than it has been and will be.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend made a statement in which he gave the official date when the publication will be made. This appeared in the Press a week ago and can only have been obtained from an official source. Will my right hon. Friend suggest that a Select Committee should be set up to investigate how that report came about?

Mr. Shore: I regret, as I think other hon. Members do, the apparent facility of the Press in getting information of this kind. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with this matter in Questions only two days ago.

Northern Region

Mr. Will Owen: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a progress report on the over-all planning progress of the Northern Region.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): The Northern Economic Planning Council will shortly be publishing its proposals for an economic development strategy for the Northern Region. It also intends to publish a survey of the Region's ports and is working on a similar survey of educational facilities. An indication of current economic progress was given in my reply to my hon. Friend's Question of 19th December.—[Vol. 775, c. 429.]

Mr. Owen: The whole of the North-East will welcome the opportunity to examine proposals which may emerge in the suggested plan. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the experience of


effective planning over recent years has not been too encouraging? Is he further aware that in South-East Northumberland, particularly in the Ashington-New-biggin-Broomhill area, there is urgent need for recognition that growth industry is the essential answer to our growing problem of unemployment? I hope that this will be taken into consideration in the plan.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for growth industry. But I remind him that the amount of factory space approved in 1968 was about 12 million square feet for the Northern Region and was the largest amount in any one year since the I.D.C. system was introduced in 1948. I know that he will welcome, as I do, the figures produced today, which show that unemployment in the region fell by 2,175 between last month and this.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making resources available to the Economic Planning Council to enable it to sample public opinion on those aspects of planning proposals which intimately affect people's lives?

Mr. Lee: The Council is composed of people intimately acquainted with the lives of the people. Many of the members are also connected with the local authorities, and I am sure that they all bring their knowledge of people's lives to bear in their deliberations.

Mr. Milne: In his capacity as Minister responsible for the region, will my right hon. Friend undertake to pay an extended visit there in order to co-ordinate the activities of the various Government Departments concerned with employment? While we pay tribute to them, particularly the Board of Trade, we feel that the oversight of regional planning from his Department is essential.

Mr. Lee: I visit the area frequently. I am happy at the progress which members of the D.E.A. staff in Newcastle are able to make with their colleagues in other Departments. If my hon. Friend has any particular problems in mind I will communicate them to our people in Newcastle. I have the greatest confidence

in the way they handle the problems.

Sir K. Joseph: Within the context of the Government's strategy, has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of increasing the number of special development areas to cover cases like Sunderland, which is suffering very heavy unemployment?

Mr. Lee: I agree about the problems of Sunderland, but at this stage it would be wrong, with the Hunt Report due, to look at the special development area status. But we are not unmindful of the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Development Areas

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the Government's policies have reduced unemployment in the development areas since October 1964; and what has been the cost of the Government's preferential assistance to development areas since that date.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimates he has made of the effect of Government policies in reducing the relative level of unemployment in development areas in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.

Mr. Shore: Five years ago unemployment in the development areas was more than double the national rate. Despite a major rundown in employment in mining and other traditional industries, the development area level has been lowered in relation to the national rate. The total cost of special assistance to development districts and areas from October 1964 up to the end of the last financial year was in the region of £325 million. The estimate for the current financial year is nearly £260 million.

Mr. Blaker: Since the figures show that, for each of the development areas, the level of unemployment is now higher than in 1964, are the Government satisfied that the expenditure of £260 million a year represents value for the taxpayers money?

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir. There is no doubt of the strong evidence of the success of the Government's policy in getting a greater inflow of new industry into


the development areas. Last year, I.D.C. approvals represented a total of 72,000 additional jobs for the development areas. The comparable figures for 1961, 1962 and 1963 were respectively, 37,000, 24,000 and 36,000.

Mr. Higgins: In discussion at Question Time with Ministers of the Board of Trade, some confusion has arisen over the definitions of new as against additional jobs. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what these definitions are or whether the two terms are the same?

Mr. Shore: That is a different question and difficult to answer. Presumably the hon. Gentleman wishes to establish the cost, as it were, of providing a particular job. We have a means of costing new jobs provided from facilities under the Local Employment Act, but what we have not got is a means of adequately measuring the contributions of such measures as investment grants and the regional employment premium towards job creation.

Mr. Tinn: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the answer to whether this expenditure is justified lies in the fact that the tremendous rundown in coal mining, in the North-East in particular, would have resulted in a very much higher figure of unemployment otherwise, and that without this expenditure he would not have been able to report that the ratio between the North and the national average had been reduced as it has?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is quite right. Given the accelerated rundown of the older industries in the development areas, only the most energetic regional policy, such as we have pursued, would have been adequate to meet the situation. By it, we have doubled the number of new jobs going to development areas through I.D.Cs. in the last four years, and this is an indication of our success.

Earl of Dalkeith: In view of that unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

North-West Region

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the result of his discussions with the North-West

Economic Planning Council about the level of public investment in the North-West Region.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now had discussions with the North-West Economic Planning Council about the Council's Report entitled "Strategy II"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: With other Ministers concerned, I had a full discussion of the major issues arising from the Council's report, including public investment, with the Chairman and other members of the Council on 23rd January. We are now considering the terms of the Government's reply which will be sent to the Council Chairman shortly.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Government's own figures, the value of orders placed by the public sector with the private sector for new construction per head of population in 1966 and 1967 in the North-West area was 20 per cent. and 17 per cent., respectively, below the national average? Did he discuss this matter with the Regional Planning Council and, if so, with what result?

Mr. Shore: I discussed the matter of relative public expenditure in the region with the chairman and his colleagues, and our comments will be in the document which we hope to publish before long as the normal reply to the Council's submission. There is, of course, a tremendous difficulty in dealing with figures which cover only part of total public expenditure, and there are other problems.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the timetable of this matter, is not the procedure immensely dilatory? Does it not give rise to the question that is never far below the surface of our thoughts—just what does the D.E.A. actually do?

Mr. Shore: Among its other functions, it carries on the work of regional planning which was never embarked upon until 1964, when the Department was established.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all good Lancastrians—particularly those involved in the Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development


Association—know that the D.E.A. is doing excellent work and are grateful for the help it has and is giving.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his recent visit to the North-West to meet the Economic Planning Council was much appreciated? Is he aware that there is growing concern in the North-West about differences in public expenditure per thousand of population there as compared with places like Scotland?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of that. As I have said, the difficulty here is to find a proper basis for making meaningful comparisons between public expenditure in the different regions.

Industrial Investment

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what discussions he has had with the National Economic Development Council about methods of encouraging a higher rate of investment in industry; and with what result.

Mr. Shore: This subject has been discussed at recent meetings of the N.E.D.C. and the Government are engaged in a series of studies concerned with various aspects of investment policy.

Mr. Shaw: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real need in inducing industry to greater investment is to restore confidence in the future and to give assurance that there will be no more of the freezes and squeezes which have done so much harm in the last four years?

Mr. Shore: Confidence is, of course, an important factor in investment, but no doubt it has not escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that the C.B.I. Report out today indicates a very substantial increase in expected investment during the coming year.

Mr. Dickens: Notwithstanding that Report, has my right hon. Friend seen Mr. Fred Catherwood's recent remarks that, unless this country steps up the level of investment markedly in the early future, technologically we shall miss the bus in the 1970s? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one foundation

for investment is a sustained economic growth of about 6 per cent. this year, next year and henceforward?

Mr. Shore: Economic growth is a very important factor in investment, and investment is increasing during this coming year. In a sense, Mr. Catherwood's remarks seem to have anticipated what may now be happening.

Nationalised Industries (Investment Plans)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs upon what annual rate of growth of gross national product are the nationalised industries to base their investment plans for the future.

The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): The nationalised industries' current investment plans are consistent with an assumed average growth of gross domestic product of 3 to 3¼ per cent. a year for the next five years. Future plans will have regard to the Government's latest views on prospects for economic growth.

Mr. Ridley: Why has it taken this Question to smoke out from the Government what is the rate of economic growth enshrined in their miserable document which they have not even got the guts to publish?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman would make as poor a detective as he does an economist. I advise him to study the way in which the programmes of nationalised industries are rolled forward year by year. These figures were given to them provisionally a year ago, and their future programmes, in rolling forward, will accommodate the new figures.

Regional Development (Expenditure)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, in view of the fact that payments for regional development are now running at over £250 million per annum, if he will give an undertaking to take steps to prevent this expenditure from further increasing.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir, but, as we have made clear, the Government are determined to keep total public expenditure under strict control.

Mr. Ridley: Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept the figure of £250


million a year which the Under-Secretary of State vehemently denied last time he answered Questions?

Mr. Shore: I am not quite certain of the definition of the sum the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he is talking about the size of the sum of the money going into development area policy, that is obviously very near the mark,

Dr. John Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal of good which results from this expenditure could be increased further if the money were applied more selectively within the development areas?

Mr. Shore: I am always very interested in proposals to increase the effectiveness of development area policy. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make for making it more selective and more effective, I should be glad to hear them.

Mrs. Ewing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the view in Scotland in this matter is that we can no longer afford the luxury of partnership with England, which is bankrupt, and as the view in England, which is becoming clear in this House, is that Scotland is getting a hand-out, the solution to economic growth would be to get rid of Scotland and let her paddle her own canoe?

Mr. Shore: I will not comment on the last part of the hon. Lady's remarks. I am surprised that apparently she is unable to recognise the very considerable improvement taking place in the Scottish economy, some part of which is certainly due to the Government's development area policy.

Miss Herbison: Will my right hon. Friend totally reject both the propositions made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing)? Is he aware that in Lanarkshire we are delighted indeed with the very great help that has been given by the Government through the development area policy?

Mr. Shore: I thank my right hon. Friend for her support of our policy. I can certainly give her the assurance she asks for. Inevitably public expenditure on development area policy is bound to increase up to a point in simply reflecting

the success of that policy. In other words, if more firms invest in development areas there will be greater public expenditure on that account.

Economic Regions (Expenditure)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will undertake a study of the means of identifying disparities in the rate of public expenditure per head of population between different economic regions.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): No, Sir. Public expenditure per head of population is a misleading measure of the benefits of the totality of public expenditure to any region.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I accept that there must and will be variations between regions, but is not this a statistical field of real significance? If the hon. Gentleman's Department is to justify its continued existence, should it not undertake this study and not shy away from its complexity?

Mr. Urwin: The hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty about the allocation, bearing in mind that that expenditure per head is distinctly misleading, particularly as the available figures are limited to expenditure on new construction only. The expenditure per head is misleading for a number of reasons. It is not allocated on this basis and in many cases the benefits of the expenditure are not limited to any single region.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Would my hon. Friend agree that expenditure in neighbouring regions is also beneficial to the North-West—for example, the money being spent to extend the M62 from Stretford into Yorkshire?

Mr. Urwin: My hon. Friend is right. Expenditure incurred in the region on road construction produces benefits outside the region.

Mr. Clegg: Would the hon. Gentleman think again about this matter? It is time that we had some comparisons. We in Lancashire feel that we are being let down. If we are not, it would be to the Government's advantage to prove it.

Mr. Urwin: Public expenditure is not allocated to the regions. The money is


spent on policy objectives and projects based on an assessment of priorities. For example, much of the expenditure on defence is administered on a national basis and has no specific regional element.

Regional Policies (Cost-Effectiveness)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will set up an independent inquiry to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the Government's regional economic policies.

Mr. Urwin: No, Sir.

Mr. Hall-Davis: What evidence on this subject has the Department submitted to the Hunt Committee, and will the hon. Gentleman publish it?

Mr. Urwin: It is not the responsibility of my Department to submit evidence to the Hunt Committee. The evidence is submitted by a number of bodies, and we shall consider the recommendations as soon as we have them.

Mr. Mikardo: Since the Government are giving to private enterprise subsidies in one form or another of between £6,000 and £10,000 for every new job it creates in the regions, would my hon. Friend study the cost effectiveness of starting selective public enterprises in the regions—or is that ruled out precisely because it was the policy of the Labour Party to which my hon. Friend, in a previous incarnation, made such a notable contribution?

Mr. Urwin: I assure my hon. Friend that the matter to which he refers is not by any means ruled out, but he will appreciate that there are certain practical problems.

Humberside Feasibility Study

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the Humberside Feasibility Report.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir, not before the report has been published.

Mr. Wall: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the planning development of Humberside has been held up for four years by a series of commissions and inquiries? Now that he has the report for publication he says that he will consult

local authorities and test public opinion. What local authorities, and how can he test public opinion if the public do not know what is in the report?

Mr. Shore: It is a matter of waiting until the report is published. I must resist the suggestion that work and planning in the Humberside area has been affected or delayed by waiting for the report. The report will deal with a pattern of growth from 1981 onwards.

Mr. George Jeger: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have been waiting for this report on Humberside for a long, long time and that there is positive stagnation in industry on Humberside with the perpetual threat of decline in future? The report is urgently awaited by local authorities, industrialists and the workers who are threatened with the loss of their jobs.

Mr. Shore: I understand my hon. Friend's interest and concern that the report should be published as soon as possible. It will be published within three or four months of the time when it was received in December.

North-West Economic Planning Council

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proposals he has for increasing the resources available to the North-West Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Urwin: My right hon. Friend has no proposals at the present time for an increase in the staff available to the Council. Regional staffing is reviewed, as necessary, in the light of work-loads and the resources available.

Mr. Ogden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chairman and members of the North-West Economic Planning Council are doing an excellent job in guiding Government investment and showing ways in which Lancashire, Cheshire and the North-West generally can help themselves? Will he give them all the encouragement he can?

Mr. Urwin: I can give my hon. Friend the promise for which he asks. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the excellent work of the Planning Council and of its Chairman, Sir William Mather. I should also like


to point out that the extremely good relations flowing from this work are of benefit to the Planning Council and to the area in general.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the pronouncements of this Manchester-based Council are not always very acceptable in Liverpool? Would he indicate to the distinguished chairman that he should always ensure that his favours are distributed entirely impartially between the two cities?

Mr. Urwin: I am sure that not only the chairman but the members of the Council are absolutely fair in their approach to the many problems with which they have to deal. I am equally certain that no discrimination is practised as between Liverpool and Manchester or any other part of the region.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. May I point out that the present leader of the Conservative-controlled Liverpool City Council is a senior member of the Northwest Economic Planning Council and, so far as I know, has agreed with all its planning and publications?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

City of London (Economic Development Committee)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proposals he has for an economic development committee for the City of London.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Following discussion in the National Economic Development Council, the Director-General of N.E.D.O. is examining with the interested parties the possible rôle of, and support for, an E.D.C. for Banking, Insurance and Finance. The Council will consider the matter further in the light of the outcome of this examination.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this subject, as on so many others, Lord Cromer has offered excellent advice? He has suggested that such a committee is quite unnecessary. Would the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of nipping in the bud this possible extension of unnecessary bureaucracy and public expense?

Mr. Lee: I must look at Lord Cromer's advice on this.

Hunt Committee (Report)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, when he now expects the Hunt Committee to report to him.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now expects to receive the report of the Hunt Committee on the grey areas.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now expects a report from the Hunt Committee.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now received the report of the Hunt Committee on grey areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now give a firm date for the publication of the Report of the Hunt Committee.

Dr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now announce the date of publication of the Report of the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now expects to receive the report of the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Shore: I expect to receive it later today and I shall arrange for its publication at the earliest possible date. In the meantime, Ministers will be closely considering the report so that the necessary consultations may be carried through and decisions announced without undue delay.

Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that uncertainty is the enemy of investment? Is it correct that there is a minority report inside the major report?

Mr. Shore: I would advise my hon. Friend to await the publication of the report. I understand his concern about uncertainty. That is why we are trying to arrange for the most rapid publication and discussion of the report possible.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: But would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking


that if the report, as seems almost inevitable, criticises fundamentally the Government's regional policy he will observe the report rather than stick slavishly to his previous policy?

Mr. Shore: Should there be criticism of the kind which the hon. Gentleman suggests, clearly I would have to consider it. My mind is not closed, and I will consider whatever evidence is put to me.

Mr. Jeger: Could my right hon. Friend say why the report has been so long delayed, although we shall welcome its publication?

Mr. Shore: I understand the natural impatience of hon. Members to get the report as soon as we set up a committee to undertake a study. But I cannot accept that there has undue delay in this case. The Hunt Committee has had only 18 months to study a very substantial area of the country which no Government has previously examined. This is bound to take time.

Dr. Gray: In view of the low average wages prevailing in Norfolk, the greyest of grey areas, instead of replying airily about the publication of the Hunt Committee's Report, will my right hon. Friend consider the anxiety and urgency with which rescue from the Government is needed in Norfolk and other areas?

Mr. Shore: Those anxieties for the first time have had the opportunity of being heard and discussed in a serious way before the Hunt Committee. I have no doubt that the Committee has thoroughly examined the points put to it.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Edinburgh Leith area, which has been a grey area, is now being bled white because more than 40 firms have closed down or moved, and has he looked at a map of Scotland, which the Government have now made into a modernistic sculpture with a hole in the middle?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman's description of the problems in Edinburgh is, to say the least, somewhat exaggerated, but evidence of Edinburgh's problems has been fully presented to the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that North-East Lancashire expects a very honourable mention in the Report, and that the announcement of the new town makes help for North-East Lancashire even more urgent? Will he act on any recommendation in the Hunt Report that increased help should be given to North-East Lancashire?

Mr. Shore: I know that the problems of North-East Lancashire have been thoroughly studied by the Hunt Committee. I point out to my hon. Friend the welcome change, compared with a year ago, in the unemployment position in the North-East Lancashire area. I cannot at the moment say what the conclusions of the Hunt Committee are, but my hon. Friend can be assured that the Hunt Committee has been considering very carefully the position of North-East Lancashire.

Mr. John Hall: Will the Minister heed the heartfelt plea by his hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) that the people in this country be rescued from this Government?

Dr. Gray: On a point of order. I did not say that. I support the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are moving too much in the grey areas.

Mr. Bagier: My right hon. Friend said that the Report of the Hunt Committee would be published as soon as possible, but, since the Report may have an effect on development policy, will he be more specific and say how soon?

Mr. Shore: I hope that the Report will be published in six to eight weeks' time. That is the earliest time in which we are able to get it printed.

British Standard Time

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of changes in output and productivity in manufacturing industry as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time.

Mr. Alan Williams: As I explained on 19th December, a few months' experience does not provide a valid basis for a firm assessment.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Surely the Under-Secretary must have figures of any increase or decrease available. Is it not painfully obvious that this absurd experiment should come to an end as soon as possible?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that the information is not available, and could not possibly be available. We would first have to take into account whether this was a typical winter and, secondly, the transitional arrangements that industry, and particularly the construction industry, has to undertake to accommodate to a new situation.

East Anglia

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he will announce the Government's policy to wards the first report of the East Anglia Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Urwin: As I said in the debate on the East Anglia Planning Council's Report in the House on 29th January, my right hon. Friend and other Ministers concerned will be meeting the Council on 3rd March. The Government's reply to the report will be sent to the Council as soon as possible afterwards.

Mr. Lane: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind in these discussions and in framing Government policy that many individuals and organisations in the area believe that the Council's report laid insufficient stress on the need to improve East-West road communications in the middle and the northern parts of East Anglia?

Mr. Urwin: This point can certainly be borne in mind, but many other bodies made representations in addition to the representations made by the Planning Council. I am not certain whether this point was made in those representations, but it can receive attention at the appropriate time.

Bathgate (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on his official visit to Bath gate.

Mr. Shore: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 19th December by my right hon. Friend

the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Dalyell: When my right hon. Friend went to Bathgate, did he notice the remarkably improved industrial conditions in that part of Scotland, which are the direct result of the development policies of this Government, and will he reconsider the matter of tolls?

Mr. Shore: I am always prepared to hear from my hon. Friend on the subject of tolls. I was struck by the confident atmosphere which existed in Bathgate, and I was glad to see it and the improvement associated with it in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPACE ACTIVITIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will now transfer the scientific work in space from the Department of Education and Science to the Ministry of Technology.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The general question of Ministerial responsibility for space activities is kept under review, but I have nothing at present to add to my Answer to a Question by the hon. Member on 30th April, 1968.—[Vol. 763, c. 994–5.]

Mr. Marten: In view of the recent changes in space policy and the fact that the Ministry of Technology has set up a new space division, is there now a valid reason why this change should not be made and space put under one head?

The Prime Minister: As the hon Gentleman knows, and I have been repeating this continuously, I still think that it is right for us to follow the example of our predecessors that, to use the old phrase, "celestial activities are related to terrestrial responsibilities of Ministers". Technology is very important in relation to the electronics industry, but it is important that the pure research in space should be controlled by the Minister responsible for the Research Councils.

Mr. Moonman: Will the Prime Minister not agree that the whole question of Government structure is worthy of a White Paper with green edges, or of a green paper with white edges, which


would also examine other European practices, whereby combined Ministries of Science and Technology have facilities for decision-making in research and development?

The Prime Minister: I have studied the position in other countries. The problem is the old one that, if pure science is put with technology, the disadvantage is that is is cut off from education, and it would be an extremely serious matter to separate universities' research activities from their teaching activities.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH COUNCIL

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to other Commonwealth leaders the setting-up of an Assembly of Commonwealth Parliamentarians to constitute a Common wealth Council for the discussion of matters of mutual interest.

The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 29th June, 1965, I made this proposal to the 1965 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting when it received less than general support and, therefore, did not make progress. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 74 of the Communiqué on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in January, which expresses appreciation of the valuable contribution to the strengthening of Commonwealth cooperation and understanding being made by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.—[Vol. 715, c. 308–14.]

Mr. Page: In view of the success of the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and the lack of enthusiasm in some parts of Europe, is it not the time to explore this idea more thoroughly?

The Prime Minister: I have put this suggestion to my Commonwealth colleagues. They are for the most part so pleased with the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—it was interesting to see how many with C.P.A. ties were at the Conference—that I do not think they will want any change made in the existing arrangements.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: While I endorse the suggestion made in the Question, will the Prime Minister agree that equally if not more important would be the creation

of a Commonwealth Court of Appeal? Will he say whether there is support for that amongst his Commonwealth Colleagues, or must we reluctantly abandon this as a practical possibility?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is warmly supported by many Commonwealth colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman will know the feelings that this has aroused in another Commonwealth country which is not an independent sovereign member of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. The right hon. Gentleman will rejoice at the progress made in co-operation on legal and judicial matters generally, as recorded in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (PRESS QUESTIONS)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on a number of Government policies, on a public occasion, in London on Monday 27th January, 1969.

The Prime Minister: There was no public speech, Sir. I did answer a number of Press questions, on the record.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his remarks in repudiating the Leader of the Opposition's disgraceful speech on Commonwealth immigration were most welcome? Will the Prime Minister give a firm undertaking that the Government will resist to the full the Powellite frenzy which is being built up opposite on the basis of the speech, in which the whole position of Commonwealth immigration and the dependants of those immigrants living here is under attack?

The Prime Minister: Our position on that is well known in the House. Concerning the speech about which I was asked questions, that, like a speech this week, was capitalising a real concern about a real problem while at the same time cashing in on scabrous prejudices, for which the right hon. Gentleman can feel nothing but contempt, by pretending to have a policy which inflames the passions and contributing nothing to the solution of the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — TATE GALLERY

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the public interest in the future of the Tate Gallery, he will seek to co-ordinate the departmental interests of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and of Public Building and Works, the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science so that, in consultation with the other interested parties, they may explore the possibility of obtaining for the extension of the Gallery the adjacent land now occupied by the Army.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to the reply given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Question by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on 13th February.—[Vol. 777, c. 372.]

Mr. Driberg: Can the Prime Minister say whether the inter-departmental meeting, which is reported to be taking place tomorrow, will be able to consider thoroughly all aspects of this problem, including the possible removal of the R.A.M.C., whose admirable work could be done elsewhere in central London?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to talk about the dating, timing or otherwise of inter-departmental meetings, but I can tell my hon. Friend that all these aspects will be considered, including the question of getting more space by removing the military medical facilities. Certainly no immediate decision will be taken. We all recognise the importance of this matter. It is more important to get the right answer than an excessively quick answer.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, after that really barely favourable reply, whether he will see to it that the trustees get what they think is best for the Tate Gallery and all that it involves? Will he, because he will have to fight very hard, see that he controls the Ministry of Defence, which always says "No" to anything that anybody asks?

The Prime Minister: That is not my experience.

Dame Irene Ward: It is mine.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady clearly does not ask the right questions. But she is, at any rate, quite right in referring to the position of the trustees. They would feel that all the problems here could be solved more satisfactorily, with more general support, if they had more land. The problem is not merely the use by the Ministry of Defence, but the considerable cost to the public purse in making the changes and removing the medical facilities, to which reference has been made. All these things are being fully considered. No options have been closed, so far as that is concerned.

Mr. Cronin: With respect to my right hon. Friend, would it not be a monstrous reversal of proper priorities if the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital, an institution of worldwide repute, were torn down to preserve a facade which has no historical value and easily replaceable aesthetic properties?

The Prime Minister: The fact that one of my hon. Friends can disagree with another of my hon. Friends shows that this is a very controversial matter. I think that 20,000 people have visited the exhibition showing the plans for the Tate and they have been polled for their views. The poll shows about as much disagreement as the questions of my two hon. Friends.

Mr. Heath: Some indication seems to have been given that the Ministry of Defence would require this property for only a certain number of years ahead. Can the Prime Minister say whether that period is yet settled and, if so, what it is?
Secondly, as I agree that it is more important to get the right answer than to rush into a decision, if the Government come to the conclusion that they cannot adhere to the present proposals, can the Prime Minister give an undertaking that there will be a further inquiry at which public representations can be made before any decision is implemented?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, I do not think that there is any fixed time limit for the use of this space for medical purposes. Certainly it would take several years if it was to be replaced not only to do the rebuilding of the Tate, but to provide alternative


facilities at pretty considerable cost to the public purse. As I say, there will be no hurry about the decision. I should like to consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposal about a public inquiry at which representations could be made.

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend talks about cost. May I ask him whether he is aware that the building of a new gallery on the hospital site with the same floor space as that proposed in the reconstruction of the Tate Gallery is not likely to cost any more than the reconstruction of the Tate Gallery? Is not that an important factor to bear in mind?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I have any figures to controvert what my right hon. Friend has said. But he will realise that there will also have to be added the substantial cost of building new hospital facilities which, in present circumstances, is a very expensive operation.

Mr. MacDermot: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a great deal more at stake here than preserving the facade of the Tate Gallery? The present accommodation is proving inadequate to house both the British collection and to serve as a museum of modern art.

On the question of timing, will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that there is very great public interest in the matter at this time and, therefore, there would be advantages in a decision being reached soon, because it would help to stimulate the possibility of raising funds from private sources towards the building of a new gallery.

The Prime Minister: That is a very welcome suggestion. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there is more involved than the question of the façade. There is an urgent need for more space not only for the display of the Gallery's growing collections of British paintings and modern works of art, but also for housing the important sculptures which, most generously, Mr. Henry Moore has offered to present to the nation. Certainly more space is required. Indeed, the present extension plan would just about double the exhibition space, but it raises other problems at the same time.

Mr. Tilney: Can the Prime Minister say whether the inter-departmental committee

will consider closing and building over one of the roads which runs at the side of the Tate Gallery?

The Prime Minister: That is another suggestion which opens up still wider problems. I will certainly see that that is considered by the Ministers concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Hooley: asked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to the form of the test of acceptability of the "Fearless" proposals which would be approved by Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: On the test of acceptability I have nothing to add to my supplementary answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on 21st January.—[Vol. 776, c. 247.]

Mr. Hooley: Does the Prime Minister agree that the trial of Mr. Sithole is a calculated attempt to terrorise the African leadership and African public opinion in Rhodesia and renders a genuine test of acceptability in that country quite impossible?

The Prime Minister: I have no idea what calculations enter into the minds of the authorities in Rhodesia. What is clear to me is that the whole House has insisted, so far as the test of acceptability is concerned, on freedom of expression in Rhodesia. The recent expulsion of a highly respected international journalist from Salisbury, without any reason given, throws doubt on their willingness to agree to free expression of opinion.

Sir C. Osborne: Since even moderate opinion in Rhodesia will never accept the Privy Council proposals, as they regard the Privy Council as an alien body, and since it is necessary to win over the moderate opinion in Rhodesia, what alternative suggestion has the Prime Minister to the Privy Council proposals?

The Prime Minister: I say to the hon. Gentleman in his presence, as I did in his absence, that I think that while he was in Rhodesia he made some extremely helpful comments, as did his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) yesterday, which the whole House welcomes.
On the second guarantee, the second safeguard against retrogressive amendment to the constitution, I dealt with this fairly fully on Tuesday in answer to Questions by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and the Leader of the Opposition. A number of us went into this very fully in the statement after "Fearless" and after the Salisbury talks which followed "Fearless".

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMER MEMBERS (OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister how many instances have been reported to him of former Members of Parliament violating the Official Secrets Acts; and what action has been taken.

The Prime Minister: Any question of a violation of the Official Secrets Acts is a matter for consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He has not in fact instituted proceedings under the Acts in respect of any former Member of Parliament.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend advise the Attorney-General to watch television more carefully and to read the newspapers—or has he ceased reading autobiographies and the like and looking at television—in order to get the necessary information?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure of my right hon. and learned Friend's television habits. I am well aware of a recent programme, which I think my right hon. Friend may have in mind. Certainly I think that the whole House will agree that any former Ambassador, be he a former Member of this House or not, who wishes to raise the veil on secret matters which occurred during his ambassadorship, has the duty of requesting the permission of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs before he does so, whether it is done in writing or on television.

Mr. Eyre: Can the Prime Minister say on what date the inquiry which he has promised into the workings of the Official Secrets Act will begin?

The Prime Minister: I said during the Fulton Debate, and I repeated it on Tuesday, that we have taken our own

internal inquiries a considerable way forward, and that I hope in the near future to be able to make a statement to the House about our position in this matter. I cannot add to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister what consideration was given at the recent Commonwealth Conference to the effect on Commonwealth trade of Great Britain joining the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 54 of the Communiqué on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not likely that as a result of the discussions at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference reference was made to the repercussions following our entry into the Common Market, if that should happen? What conclusions were reached about it?

The Prime Minister: References to that were made not only during the full Conference, but during the bilateral discussions with individual heads of Governments. Some Commonwealth countries wholeheartedly support the idea of Britain's joining. Others accept the idea but are worried about particular aspects of their own trade. We fully discussed each country's anxieties with the country concerned, except New Zealand, which is a special case on which I and others have reported to the House on a number of occasions.

Sir C. Osborne: As the events of the last week have shown that President de Gaulle is still master of the other five Members of the Common Market, and since he shows no sign of retiring or dying, would not it be better for us to withdraw our application until he is dead?

The Prime Minister: I have had to tell the hon. Gentleman in the past when he has used similar phrases that this is not a form of diplomatic address which it is particularly helpful for Governments to use in communications with one another. I would not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about any one member


of the Six being master of the other five. This is a community of six countries, and the desire of the other five for British entry is very very clear indeed, as was reiterated by Chancellor Kiesinger's joint declaration with me last week.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does or does not my right hon. Friend favour a wider free trade area, involving, inter alia, Great Britain, the Commonwealth, the old Commonwealth, and the United States? Has he canvassed that with President Nixon? If not, will he do so at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: President Nixon has not arrived yet. We are all in favour of the widest possible area of free trade. We are all in favour of world government, but, we do not think that either is likely to come quickly—[Interruption.] Most of us are in favour of ultimate world Government. I shall speak for this side of the House, and, I think, most hon. Members opposite. The fact that these things are not likely does not mean that we should not push on with the thing which is most important, and as a move towards world free trade British entry into the Common Market will be a valuable step, in addition to strengthening Europe technologically against power blocs.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps I could cut through the welter of words used by the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth would not look with favour on this country signing the Treaty of Rome as it stands?

The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth has no collective view on this matter. Some Commonwealth countries are very keen on Britain getting into the Common Market. Others say that it is a matter for Great Britain, and that they will accept a neutral position. Others express anxieties about certain aspects of the effect on their own trade. Not a single Commonwealth country at the Conference opposed Britain's application.

SCOTLAND (CAIRNGORMS AVALANCHE)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Gordon Campbell (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about

the avalanche which occurred in the Cairngorms yesterday.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The avalanche on Cairn Gorm buried nine climbers who formed part of a larger party from Glen-more Lodge engaged on an exercise in winter survival. Those buried were all quickly rescued by local rescue teams.
Of the seven who were injured, the two most seriously hurt were taken by R.A.F. helicopter to Raigmore Hospital, Inverness. Six of the injured are still in hospital.
Local services and volunteers operated with great speed and effectiveness, and I am sure that the House would wish to join me in congratulating them on the action they took.

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Campbell I am sure that the House will be relieved to know that no lives were lost, and will hope that the injured will have a rapid recovery. I am sure, also, that the House would wish to express its admiration for the speed and success of the rescue operation, including the services provided by the Royal Air Force.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this episode could have been very much more serious? Now that we have a winter sports and recreation area growing in Scotland, has not the time come for special arrangements to be made by which warning can be issued when there are dangerous conditions during the winter?

Mr. Ross: Warnings had been issued here. They had been set up for a few days, I believe. Because of the importance of this, and also because of the dangers to which the hon. Gentleman referred, some time ago we set up a special review of the liaison necessary between Army headquarters in Scotland and the chief constables in respect of this type of rescue work.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is interest in the Cairngorms in the South of Scotland, as well as in the North? If this accident had happened at the weekend, or during the New Year's holiday, when more than 4,000 people were on the slopes, this might have been a major catastrophe. Will my right hon. Friend see to it that every possible precaution is taken to give warning?

Mr. Ross: I have already said that every precaution is taken to give warning. I think that what we should appreciate is that Glenmore Lodge is run by the Scottish Council for Physical Recreation, and that these were special parties out under experienced people. The chances are that if they had been altogether inexperienced and not working in this way they would not have been out on the mountains.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill.
Prayer on the Public Service Vehicles (Licences and Certificates) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY and WEDNESDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Committee stage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Development of Tourism Bill.
FRIDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 3RD MARCH—Debate on the White Paper "In Place of Strife", Command No. 3888.

Mr. Heath: On the business for Monday week, the right hon. Gentleman has not followed his usual custom of telling us the form of the debate. Do the Government intend to put down a Motion to approve the White Paper, "In Place of Strife"?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling that the time has come for a further debate on foreign affairs? I do not think that it is satisfactory that we should try to combine this with the debate in due course on the Defence White Paper. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind

that we would like a debate on foreign affairs before Easter?

Mr. Peart: On the second matter, I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I agree that it is not satisfactory to have foreign affairs intermingled with defence, although often the subjects can be related.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that during the week after next we shall have a debate on the Defence White Paper. I hope that there will be the usual two-day debate. I think that it might be useful for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to know that.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Motion on industrial relations has not yet been drafted. As soon as it is, I shall arrange for it to be put on the Order Paper so that hon. Members will have an opportunity to consider it. I think that it is desirable that the House should come to a firm view, one way or the other, on the principles involved.

Mr. Heath: Would not it be a good idea if the Government came to a firm view on it one way or the other? Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know whether the Government have decided to approve their own White Paper?

Mr. Peart: I do not want to get involved in a debating point now, but that also applies to both sides of the House. As soon as it is drafted I will see that the Motion is put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to with drawing from next week's business the Parliament (No. 2) Bill? Its obvious absurdities are now being seen more generally by everyone. It is very difficult to find——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a long speech at this stage.

Mr. Sheldon: I humbly submit that, with you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would never even attempt it.
Would my right hon. Friend accept that there are now becoming divisions between both Front Benches and alliances between both back benches and that that is not necessarily a good thing for Parliament? Will he take the opportunity to


discuss the Bill very carefully through the usual channels to see whether it can be dropped at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is right. The House has noted that there have been some unusual alliances. My reply to him is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Following the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House, can you protect back benchers, Mr. Speaker? The idea of announcing the business for next week is so that hon. Members can make their arrangements and carry out their Parliamentary duties. It is impossible to do that in view of the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman made for Monday week without giving the details of the Motion to be entered into. If Parliamentarians are to arrange their programmes so as to do their duty, they must be given full information.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That point has already been put to the House, rather more succinctly, by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If it is intended to proceed with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, could the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the difficulties of which he is aware and which arose this morning, arrange that somewhat earlier notice be given of a decision to carry on the debate the following morning than 11.30 the previous night?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows the Standing Order relating to suspensions. If we can do as he asks, I shall be only too pleased to consider it, but we will proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Milne: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibilities of an early debate on European unity, in view of the recent widespread perambulations in Europe and the need to clarify the situation?

Mr. Peart: I understand my hon. Friend's point. This was stressed by the Leader of the Opposition, when he emphasised the need for a foreign affairs debate.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least guarantee that, in view of the widespread industrial difficulties in the motor and the steel industries, there will be a clear indication of the Government's own view of their fundamental proposals on labour relations a good time before we debate them a week on Monday?

Mr. Peart: There will be opportunities on the White Paper to debate these matters.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the business that he proposes for Tuesday and Wednesday was compiled before the debates that we had last night and before we had the debates this morning on this same subject? Will he take into account the fact that there is an entirely new situation on this subject? Would he present it to the Cabinet, so that we can have a statement on Monday as to whether this business is to proceed?
Referring to the alliances which he mentioned, would my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that, whereas the alliance of the back benches is getting stronger, the alliance of the Front Benches, who have to push through this Measure, is getting weaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the merits of his request for a debate or non-debate.

Mr. Peart: I have announced the business.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a point of order."] On a point of order, then. The question in dispute is whether there are any merits to be discussed at all.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, either.

Mr. Peyton: Can the right hon. Gentleman take us into his confidence and say why he is being so extraordinarily difficult about the Motion on the White Paper? The House is very anxious to know in good time whether or not the Government approve their own White Paper. That is the simple point.

Mr. Peart: I thought that my reply was satisfactory.

Sir Dingle Foot: Apart from the general issues which would be raised in a debate on foreign affairs, is it not now a matter of great urgency to debate the situation in the Middle East?

Mr. Peart: This matter has been stressed by hon. Members last week as well. I must say, "Not next week", but I have noted what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Mr. Younger: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any time next week to discuss the positive waterfall of leaks this week on the Defence White Paper? If we cannot be secure on that, where can we be?

Mr. Peart: There will be an opportunity to debate matters on the White Paper when it comes.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are greatly concerned at the Government's delay in introducing the necessary legislation on merchant shipping and the public ownership of the docks? Why cannot we have time for that next week, on Tuesday and Wednesday, instead of this frivolous Bill that the Government insist on going ahead with?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should not say that the Parliament Bill is a frivolous Bill. He may have his point of view, but it is a very important constitutional matter. I should like to find time for many important subjects which could be affected by a long delay on that Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: As the Parliament (No. 2) Bill threatens to turn into the longest running comedy since the days of Harold Lloyd——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot repeat at Question Time a debate that we had in Committee.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the request that I made to him last week to impose a timetable Motion on this Bill, so that far more important matters which are awaiting the attention of the House can be debated?

Mr. Peart: I am tempted to reply in the terms that the hon. Member adopted in his contribution to our debates last week.

Mr. James Griffiths: I gather from my right hon. Friend that he is contemplating, if not this week or next week, in the early future, a debate on overseas affairs. Would he bear in mind that now, under the new arrangement, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also has responsibility for the Commonwealth and the Colonies? Would he therefore arrange that, in that debate, we can discuss the urgent situation in Nigeria?

Mr. Peart: I do bear this in mind. I have said on previous occasions that, if we can sectionalise the debate, it is a good thing.

Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the Motion standing in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends on the abnormal rise in the cost-of-living index?

[That this House deplores the fact that the official index of retail prices now shows the biggest annual increase for 17 years.]

As this affects every man, woman and child in the country, would it not be democratic to allow a debate on that issue at an early opportunity?

Mr. Orme: On Tuesday.

Mr. Peart: I note what the hon. Lady says, but not next week.

Mr. Brooks: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 160, regarding the criminological fantasies of the Leader of the Opposition?

[That this House views with interest the Leader of the Opposition's argument that crime is due to the Government, since this may explain why there was an increase of 260 per cent. in crimes of violence against the person, and of 75 per cent. in frauds and false pretences, between 1951 and 1964]

Would it be possible, so as to get the record straight, to invite the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement, possibly during Prayers on Monday, to make it clear that the annual rate of increase of indictable offence——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Government must be about what the Government are responsible for.

Mr. Brooks: —during the 13 years of Tory government was twice as high as


that in the four years of Labour government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into the merits of what he wants debate, and what he is asking for is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Peart: I have noted the Motion with interest. The subject to which he refers, I should have thought, could be raised when we debate law and order on Monday.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that last year we had six successive days for the general defence debate with individual defence debates and that this did not make for a proper examination and consideration of these important matters? Will he arrange business so that the individual debates do not take place successively, and that there is a pause between the two?

Mr. Peart: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. John Lee: Reverting to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill pantomime, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we have already spent four days, including morning sitting extensions, on this Measure? How many more plenary sessions does my right hon. Friend calculate we will need to complete the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Peart: We must wait and see.

Sir D. Glover: Following the right hon. Gentleman's recent comments, may I ask him when we can expect the Second Reading of the Parliament (No. 3) Bill?

Mr. John Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he gave a promise that the House would have an early debate on foreign affairs, with special reference to a given subject, say, European affairs? Does he realise that his announcement about having the defence debate first is putting the cart before the horse? Is it not scandalous that the House will not debate foreign affairs next week, before considering the Defence Estimates? Could not such a debate take place, with the result that some of next week's business could be delayed a little longer?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows the traditional allowance on the White Paper for debates on defence and policy. There will be an important debate on Monday. I am pressed time and again to have debates of this kind. I thought that I gave my hon. Friend a sympathetic answer the other week.

Mr. Hastings: Concerning the debate on Monday week, is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot say whether or not the House will be asked to approve the White Paper?

Mr. Peart: I have already answered that.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I supplement the appeal made by hon. Members for a debate on merchant shipping, an important subject on which our exports depend?

Mr. Peart: I thought that the question related to the Merchant Shipping Bill, which is a rather different matter.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say what form the debate will take on Monday, will he make sure that time is provided for the Postmaster-General to condemn the inflammatory broadcasts on B.B.C. television last night?

Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the debate which will take place a week on Monday. There is ample time in which to study the relevant Motion.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in October the Government gave a firm assurance that they would bring forward proposals for amending the merchant shipping legislation this Session? Is he aware that there is great danger of time running out? May we have an assurance that priority will be given to the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill?

Mr. Peart: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. As he is aware, the use of time is developing in certain ways by certain Members, and this makes things difficult.

Sir C. Taylor: Is it not a bit early to have the Second Reading debate of the Development of Tourism Bill? Would


it not be more convenient for hon. Members to have more time in which to consult their constituents, associations and organisations before that stage of the Bill is taken?

Mr. Peart: I would have thought that the time available had been adequate. I agree that this is an important Bill.

Mr. Roebuck: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) that the Government have made no assessment whatever of the progress that is likely to be made next week with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill? If so, are we to go on discussing this silly Measure for two days every week? Is he aware that he should take it away and dump it somewhere?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should not make that assumption. He knows the reasons for the present position.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While agreeing with the Leader of the House that the Parliament (No. 2) Bill is important, may I ask him to agree that it could wait a little longer while there are such pressing events in the Middle East arising out of the Arab-Israel conflict and the possibility of grave events arising out of Berlin? Will he therefore keep his mind open, through the usual channels, to the possibility of substituting debates at short notice on these vital matters should conditions worsen?

Mr. Peart: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I cannot alter next week's business in the way he implies.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of one of the more undesirable imports from the Western hemisphere, namely, filibustering introduced into the House by the killers of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill—would my right hon. Friend consider——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the business he wants or does not want debated. He must not now debate what we have been debating in Committee for three days.

Mr. Tuck: Would my right hon. Friend consider applying the Guillotine to the Bill?

Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the time being consumed in Committee on the largely unsupported Parliament (No. 2) Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the Easter, Whitsun and Summer Recesses are likely to be?

Mr. Peart: I suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise this matter, because I have mentioned dates. If hon. Members press me so vigorously about certain matters, and they wish to make contributions in the way they have described, then perhaps we would need to reconsider this matter.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be disgraceful if the Government did not keep their promise to introduce merchant shipping legislation this Session?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of this matter, and I am anxious to be sympathetic.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking, in view of the widespread disquiet in country areas and not least in the more remote areas, that as a result of the reorganisation committee on eggs which he appointed, we will have an early debate on this important subject?

Mr. Peart: That will occur as soon as possible and when the relevant Order is presented.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is two years to the month since the Pearson Committee reported on the shipping industry and that the Government have given an undertaking that the necessary Bill would be introduced this Session? May we now have an undertaking that it will not only be introduced, but passed this Session?

Mr. Peart: I could not give that undertaking until we see what progress is made.

Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the desirability of making ex gratia payments to the early victims of the foot-and-mouth epidemic last year, in view of the obvious difficulties that have arisen between the Government, the N.F.U. and the farmers who were involved?

Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Gentleman must wait until my right hon. Friend has declared his position in the matter.

Mr. English: Would my right hon. Friend consider resummoning the bipartisan negotiating committee on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill so that it may consider the strong opposition that has come from both back benches? Is he aware that this might, even to a small extent, speed the progress of what I can only call the "both Front Benches' Bill"?

Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. Friend's interesting comment. I have already announced the business for next week.

Mr. Winnick: If it is intended that the House should have only one day on Monday week to debate "In Place of Strife", may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position, since two days should be provided for this important subject.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's feeling in this matter. However, we will be having the Defence White Paper debate and it is traditional for two days to be given to that.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As it was revealed this morning that only two members of the Government are wholeheartedly in favour of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift into this morning's debate.

Mr. Lewis: —and as it would appear that only one back bencher is in favour of it, why is my right hon. Friend so anxious to push the Bill through, if it has only three supporters?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate, at business question time, the merits of a Bill which is before the House. Hon. Members may ask for more time to discuss it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or less time, or no time at all to discuss it.

Mr. Ellis: Would my right hon. Friend note that it is difficult to discuss in the

House matters concerning the Meteorological Office? Is he aware that this subject can be raised only when defence is being debated, and then only if the relevant Motion is sufficiently widely drawn? In view of the shocking weather that we have been having, will he ensure that it will be possible for hon. Members to debate this issue?

Mr. Peart: I will look sympathetically at that suggestion.

Mr. Judd: In view of the widespread anxiety among social workers throughout the country about the future of the social services, can my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to debate the Seebohm recommendations on the future of the social services?

Mr. Peart: Not at this stage.

Mr. Walden: Reverting to the business for next Tuesday and Wednesday, as my right hon. Friend has declined to withdraw the Bill,—indeed, as he has sought the co-operation of the House in expediting its progress—will he consider recommending to the Cabinet that the Government drop the Clauses relating to composition and proceed with the Clauses relating to powers.

Mr. Peart: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. But we must proceed next week, as I said.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) about debating the Meteorological Office concerns a topic which is probably the most important to the country at present? Is he aware that the country are far more concerned with the weather than with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill and that, as the Government are being blamed for the weather, this matter should be debated?

Mr. Peart: I cannot do more than I have said.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. Mr. Roy Jenkins. Statement.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 1968–69 to 1970–71

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I am now able to report progress to the House on the management of public expenditure for 1968–69 and 1969–70, and to indicate the Government's further plans for 1970–71.
I told the House on 25th November and 2nd December that public expenditure for both 1968–69 and 1969–70 was running within the totals announced by the Government just over a year ago. After taking into account the spring Supplementary Estimates for 1968–69 and the Vote on Account for 1969–70, which will be published later this afternoon, I can now give this indication greater firmness, precision and detail.
For 1968–69, I estimate that aggregate expenditure will be £15,870 million at forecast outturn prices, as against an aggregate of £15,165 million for 1967–68 at the same price level. This is an increase in real terms over the previous year of 4·6 per cent., satisfactorily within the announced figure of 4¾ per cent.
For 1969–70 in accordance with the Government's announcement in January of last year, the increase in public expenditure over 1968–69 will be held to 1 per cent. in real terms. The present estimate puts the aggregate for specific programmes at £16,360 million, at 1969–70 Estimates prices, with £75 million available for contingencies making a total of £16,435 million. This is an increase on almost exactly 1 per cent. over the 1968–69 target.
I shall be making the text of this statement available as a White Paper, which will also include details of the latest estimates of the various main services and programmes.
I have explained that the figure for 1968–69 takes full account of the Supplementary Estimates which are being published today. Of the total of £165 million for which supplementary provision will be sought, taking Civil and Defence Estimates together, only £81 million represents an increase in public expenditure in real terms. The remainder relates to two elements: first, transfers within the public sector and other transactions which

add nothing to public expenditure, amounting to £22 million; and secondly, pay and price increases amounting to £62 million.
As the House knows, the conventions which govern the form of Supplementary Estimates preclude them from showing the full extent of under-spendings on Votes; and these under-spendings will be substantially greater than the Supplementary Estimates now being presented.
Figures for 1969–70 similarly take account of that part of central Government expenditure for which provision is made in the new Supply Estimates, which will be published in summary form today with the Vote on Account.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly how Supply expenditure fits within the framework of the planned 1 per cent. increase in public expenditure at constant prices. The net total of the Supply Estimates for 1969–70 is £11,571 million, and making the crudest comparison with the net total of Supply Estimates for last year's Budget this represents an increase of 7·9 per cent. before discounting price increases. But as much as a quarter of Supply expenditure is not public expenditure. On the other hand, public expenditure includes a number of large items which are not voted annually by the House. Thus the total and make-up of public expenditure are very different from those of Supply expenditure; and consequently, comparing 1969–70 with 1968–69, the increase in public expenditure is also very different from the increase in Supply expenditure.
Taking all the steps in the reconciliation—and these will be found set out in the White Paper—and making the necessary adjustment to discount the effects of price changes, the estimated increase in public expenditure in 1969–70 in real terms is the planned figure of 1 per cent.
The mere fact that the relationship between the Supply figures and the figures for public expenditure requires this explanation is one of a number of unsatisfactory consequences of procedures for handling the Vote on Account which were devised for another age. I hope that by the appropriate processes of the House it may be possible during the course of the coming year to devise some simpler and more informative arrangements.
To complete the picture, I should tell the House that capital expenditure by the nationalised industries, the B.B.C., the I.T.A. and Covent Garden Market Authority in the current year is now expected to be at least 6 per cent. at constant prices below the level expected a year ago, and to continue at about the current level in 1969–70. In 1970–71, it is provisionally estimated to revert to around the higher 1967–68 level, though firm figures have not yet been approved.
The Government have now completed a review of public expenditure for 1970–71. I shall give details of the specific programmes in the White Paper, but, as with the original figures for 1968–69 and 1969–70, the amounts given there must be read as subject to such marginal adjustments, within the overall total, as may from time to time be needed to ensure that the expenditure plan as a whole is adhered to. The aggregate of the specific programmes in 1970–71 is planned to increase by about 2 per cent. above total public expenditure in 1969–70, plus a further margin of up to 1 per cent. which will be available, if required, to meet whatever contingencies may arise.
It is the firm intention of the Government to manage public expenditure in 1970–71 within these limits, which have been selected as fully consistent with attainment of the Government's declared objectives for social progress, economic advance, and, as the first priority in present circumstances, the required switch of resources to the balance of payments.

Mr. Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, particularly in view of the confusion that arose a year ago about the Vote on Account, that his statement, although lengthy, is very welcome? Secondly, is he also aware, if I take him aright on a point he made earlier, when he seemed to be suggesting that the collective wisdom of the House or that part of it which takes a close interest in these matters, might help him to devise some simpler arrangements, that we would very much wish to play our part in that?
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, these matters and the papers he is laying today require careful study. No doubt there will be opportunities for debate, but may I raise a point of clarification? We now have the out-turn for 1968–69 at 4·6 per cent. We have the

forecast for 1969–70 and these, as the Chancellor said, are more or less in line with the forecasts a year ago.
Am I right in thinking that those forecasts a year ago, and, therefore, the forecasts today, are basically still the forecasts of the National Plan? As that plan postulated a growth which has not been achieved in five out of the six years that we have experience of it, this shows, on the Government's own criterion, that public expenditure is still too high.

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having been patient, along with the rest of the House, throughout my necessarily long statement, and for his expression of gratitude for it. As I said, I believe that the fact that it is necessary, as I think it was, to make such a complicated explanation, shows that there is something wrong with the system in which we present our accounts. It is certainly the intention of the Government during the course of this year to lay before the appropriate authorities suggestions for greater simplification in future. I believe that this will be generally welcome.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts, which is the case, that for this year we are a little below target. For next year we are at the moment exactly on the target which we laid down in January, 1968—a target about which I may say the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition expressed some scepticism, even at the time of the Budget.
So far as the relationship with growth is concerned, 1968 has been a year of strong growth, a year in which the growth of public expenditure will not be very different from the growth of national income. In 1969, on our target figures—and I have every reason to believe, from our experience of last year, that we will stick to them; we are determined to do so—the growth of public expenditure, for the first time for many years, should be well below the growth in the national income.

Mr. Macleod: I understand that, and I am sure that the House does, but the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the specific point I put to him. The figures today, which I concede are in line with a year ago, are also in line with the National Plan. When the plan came out,


and I have the quotation here, it was said that the level of public expenditure must depend, in turn, upon the level of growth.
Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that, and, if he does not, will he agree that the level of growth, not just taking this last year, but over the past five years, did not justify the level of public expenditure which we have reached?

Mr. Jenkins: It depends on the period we take. If we start from the beginning of 1968–69, from the statement of my right hon. Friend in January, 1968, the growth of public expenditure—we are now halfway through this period—in this year and next year will be well below the growth in the national income. If we take the period going back to the beginning of the plan, it will be approximately the case, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the growth over that period will be broadly equivalent to that laid down by the plan.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend resist the attempts of the Opposition to persuade us to cut public expenditure in the way in which they would deliberately do so, that is, to cut personal living standards among the less well-off sections of the community? Will he accept the congratulations of some of us, at least, for his efforts to simplify the method of presentation? Could he not also achieve a higher level of public expenditure, particularly in the social area, where it is very much needed—despite the high level of public expenditure—by aiming for a somewhat lower level of balance of payments surplus, from the £500 million he has stated he needs for some years?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I will certainly resist all unreasonable demands for cuts or restrictions in public expenditure. I am bound to say that what I hear from the Opposition is more demands for increases in public expenditure in detail than demands for cuts—cuts in general and increases in detail.
As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not for a moment believe that it would be right at present to give a lower priority to an improvement in the balance of payments than that which I am giving—the first priority.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Chancellor say what changes the figures he is announcing this afternoon involve over the next few years in the level of grants to local authorities, and what effect on rate poundages those changes are likely to involve?

Mr. Jenkins: The grants for the next two years have already been announced. There is no change, beyond what I believe my right hon. Friend has already told the House, involved in the figures I have given. I could not, without notice, give the right hon. Gentleman the rate poundages.

Mr. Albu: Would my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side congratulate him on bringing public expenditure under control, as it was in such a completely chaotic state when the present Administration took over from the previous Conservative Administration? Is not the answer to the question by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) that if we get an adequate balance of payments surplus this year, and in the following years, as I am sure my right hon. Friend intends to do, the question of the rate of increase of public expenditure is completely dealt with, because the level at which my right hon. Friend intends to keep it is adequate?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expression of support. I would certainly say that I believe that the two main objectives we should seek to follow at present are, first, an adequate surplus of the balance of payments, and, secondly, as good a rate of growth as we can achieve compatible with that. That requires, in the first instance, considerable restraint upon public expenditure which we are here achieving, but in the slightly longer term it makes it possible for public expenditure to grow at a reasonable rate.

Mr. Turton: To complete the picture, can the Chancellor give us figures for the demands on the National Loans Fund for capital expenditure by local authorities for the same period?

Mr. Jenkins: It is not normal, as I think the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, to publish this before the Financial Statement. It will be published then.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend accept warm congratulations on bringing public expenditure under control? May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who has presumably played his part in all of this, for which we are extremely grateful? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that the next stage to be tackled is to define the choices open to us, realistically, so that we know in advance what they will cost?

Mr. Jenkins: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Chief Secretary, because although it falls to me to make this statement it fell to him to do the extremely detailed work of public expenditure control throughout the year.
By publishing these figures for 1971 in considerably greater detail than hitherto —and I would be surprised if even my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) saw the details of these figures published previously—it will enable the House to improve the standard of rational debate about what are sensible priorities.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, as to his welcome promise to devise some more informative arrangement for giving the House a clear picture of the probable levels of public expenditure, will he include in this new picture provision for depreciation and obsolescence of Government assets, which he will recognise is part of expenditure? Secondly, does he agree that the required switch of resources to the balance of payments, of which he spoke, is substantially less than the loss of national income, which has been forgone forever as a result of particular Government measures taken recently?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by the last part of his question. We have had a very high rate of growth during 1968, not as high as one might have liked to have seen, but certainly the highest rate of growth, combined with an improving balance of payments which we have seen in this country for well over a decade.
I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said in the first part of his question.

Mr. Dickens: Will the Chancellor confirm that, whereas the level of private consumption is relatively the highest of any advanced industrial country, the level of central and local government spending is proportionately lower than that in West Germany and America?
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that the sort of restrictions on public spending he has announced this afternoon for 1969 and years henceforth would have been totally avoidable if he and the Cabinet had pursued a policy of rapid economic expansion after devaluation, and put that first, instead of trying to achieve an unattainable surplus on the balance of payments?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not agree that it would have been then, or would be now, a sensible policy to ignore the balance of payments. Putting this right is the major priority for the country. I stick most firmly to that point. I cannot believe that it would be sensible to take another point of view at all.
As to my hon. Friend's first question, I would not like absolutely explicitly to confirm his figures, because there are so many different ways in which they could be presented. I would agree with his general proposition that it is, in general, the case that the level of private consumption in relation to other advanced countries is higher in this country than the level of expenditure.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Do the Chancellor's figures on the step-up of public expenditure of £75 million take fully into account the considerable increase in local government expenditure, much of which is incurred because of the dictation of the Government, and which subsequently has to be recovered from the ratepayers in higher rates?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, it does, and that was a most important part of the reconciliation which I endeavoured, recognising the opaqueness of the subject, to explain to the House. It is an important difference between public expenditure and Supply expenditure, which are dealt with at this time of the year. I am not sure that I would agree with the general judgment the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Cronin: While the objective of local authority expenditure should be brought into my right hon. Friend's


policy, would he ensure that the Government have a more flexible attitude towards applications for loan sanctions from local authorities, as the rigidity which sometimes occurs causes economic disorder and some hardship?

Mr. Jenkins: I am all against rigidity and in favour of effective overall control, but the point which my hon. Friend raises is primarily one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who will, no doubt, take note of what he says.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the priority which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives to the balance of payments and, in particular, import savings, can he give us an assurance that in his estimate of expenditure full account is taken of the expansion of home agriculture as detailed by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last November?

Mr. Jenkins: It is certainly the case that just as in Cmnd. 3515, published in January, 1968, expenditure arising from the Farm Price Review was left to be taken into account later, as it has been in our accounts for this year, so in future this will be dealt with in approximately the same way.

Mr. John Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend concede that it would be possible to achieve a greater rate of public capital expenditure on the social services in general and housing, in particular, if he were able to achieve a greater switch from personal consumption to savings? Will he not rule out the possibility of a further increase on the Estimates he has given if he is able to achieve that switch from personal consumption into savings?

Mr. Jenkins: I am fully aware of the importance of improving the savings ratio, even though this remained relatively good, during 1968, contrary to views put forward at a certain stage; but there is room for improvement and I would like to see it improved. Were it improved, a number of things would flow from it and a number of competing claims could be taken into account.

Mr. David Howell: While the Chancellor feels satisfied with the level of public expenditure, would he not agree

that there is still much to be concerned about in the rising cost of many public programmes? Would he not accept that, until the Government install new budgetary control methods in government, there will still be no room for complacency? Will he ensure that Departments have formal and specific cost reduction targets to bring savings as a habit into government?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not feel complacent about public expenditure, its methods of control, or its method of presentation, but it is easier not to feel complacent than to know exactly how to improve matters. None the less, I hope to make some improvements in the course of the coming year.

Mr. Whitaker: On the allocation of public expenditure, is it not a fact that the proportion of G.N.P. we are spending on defence is still far above the European average? As the Government were twice elected on a mandate of reducing the proportion and increasing the proportion of G.N.P. spent on overseas aid, what progress can we make in this reallocation?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not believe that this is so. I believe that we shall find that the proportion of the gross national product going on defence is coming down below 6 per cent. for the first time for a very long time and that we will see a substantial improvement from my hon. Friend's—I think sensible—point of view in our relationship with other European countries. We will also see a position in which defence expenditure is more below estimate, as it was last year, than any other major item of expenditure; and it will fall next year.

Mr. Nott: Will the Chancellor say why he leaves the estimates for the Price Review out of these figures? Would it not be a fact that if he brought the Review within the figures this could have a radical effect on them, assuming the Government intend, in due course, to go for agricultural expansion?

Mr. Jenkins: I leave the Review figures out of the statement for the good reason that they have not yet been decided on and that it would not seem a very sensible way of approaching the farming community to announce to them in a general statement what had been decided for them.
Nor do I accept the view that this in any way invalidates the figures, because last year we were in the same position when we announced our general statement. But that has not prevented us—this metaphor is always a little difficult —being a little below target at the present time so far as 1968–69 expenditure is concerned.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the urgent need to reduce public expenditure, would it not impress the man in the street and give a spendid example to local authorities if the Government looked again at the very big expenditure on the Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at Caernarvon and decided to postpone it?

Mr. Jenkins: I note that a somewhat different view is taken by my hon. Friend and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, on this matter. I am not quite sure which of them is the man in the street in this case.

Mr. Biffen: Can the Chancellor of the the Exchequer confirm that throughout he has been using figures he describes as "real terms"? These do not relate to the expenditure in the currency of any one particular year. In so far as public expenditure is very often very labour-intensive, and, therefore, will respond particularly sensitively to movements in wage rates in the public sector, can he say what, in actual terms, he expects will be the levels of expenditure in 1969–70?

Mr. Jenkins: I gave precisely that information in my statement. It is reasonable to give figures in real terms because the importance of Government expenditure in our national economy is essentially the call upon resources which it makes. But even if I were not arguing from that point of view, I could argue that the reason for treating it in real terms stems from the Report of the Plowden Commission, which was set up by the previous Government in 1961. That Report was published in a White Paper and governed the conventions with which public expenditure has been treated, at least since the publication of the Vote on Account, 1962–63.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on confirming the details

that were published by the political correspondent of the Daily Express yesterday, including the fact that my right hon. Friend would be making his statement today. Will he investigate how the Daily Express got this information, or will he support the Motion which I put on the Order Paper yesterday, calling for a Select Committee to go into this?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put the last part of this question to the Leader of the House at Business Question time.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Then may I ask the Chancellor whether he will inquire how the Press got all this information and the fact that he was to make his statement today, which was published in the newspaper yesterday? It can only have got the information from my right hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Jenkins: I noticed one or two inaccuracies in the article. I can assure my hon. Friend that, if he studies the White Paper, he will see that it contains a great deal of information which, had it been published, would have covered not one column but half of the Daily Express yesterday.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will remember the Prime Minister saying in January, 1968, that many sacred cows would have to be slaughtered? The Chancellor has now told the House that public expenditure went up £705 million this year and is to go up £500 million in the coming year, which will be a great disappointment to the taxpayers who will have to meet the bill. Could he tell us what sacred cows have been slaughtered during the last 13 months?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, the policy decisions which have been announced and the difficult decisions which have been taken. There would have been greater disappointment to the taxpayer if the defence policies which the hon. Gentleman advocates so frequently in speeches and letters to The Times were carried out, which would involve much higher levels of public expenditure.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's statement that the rate of investment in the public sector will be declining, whilst


the level of investment in the rest of industry is increasing? Are the Government satisfied that this rate of growth in essential public industries can sustain what is needed not only in that sector, but in the services that they maintain in the rest of industry?

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend is broadly right in his assumption for the next year or so, but I am satisfied that this is a sensible development at present, because we have recently been through a very heavy period of investment, particularly in the electricity industry, which is now tailing off for natural reasons. Then, after a year or so, there are certain other public industries in which investment will grow. It is not a decision taken in the interests of holding down the total, except that we always want value for money, but as a natural result of the demands laid upon the nationalised sector.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

SCOTLAND (RATE SUPPORT GRANT)

4.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
House of Commons Paper No. 119 explains the considerations leading to the provisions of the Order. The Order fixes the amount of the rate support grants for the next two-year period and prescribes the formulas by which that will be distributed. To arrive at the amount of the rate support grants, an estimate has first to be made for each year of the reckonable expenditure of the local authorities for each year which can be accepted for grant: this is their total rate-borne expenditure excluding payments into the housing revenue account or any trading account.
The aggregate amount of all grants on revenue expenditure, other than housing subsidies, is then calculated as a percentage—in this period 64½ per cent. and 65½ per cent.—of the reckonable expenditure; the estimated amount of the specific grants in each year is taken off; and the balance represents the rate support grants.
These are divided into three parts—the domestic element, the needs element, and the resources element. The domestic element, payable to all rating authorities, represents the amount by which rates on dwelling houses will be reduced. It was 10d. and 1s. 8d. for the two years of the first grant period and will be 2s. 6d. and 3s. 4d. for the next period. Three-quarters of the remainder of the grant is allocated to the needs element. This is distributed on a weighted population basis to education authorities and then redistributed to their constituent rating authorities on the same basis as requisitions for whole-county services. The remaining quarter is allocated to the resources element and distributed to rating authorities in proportion to their deficiency of rating resources.
In making these estimates and determinations, the Act requires three things to be taken into consideration. The first is the current level of prices and wages, which in this case means the level at the


end of November, 1968, as agreed with the local authority associations.
The second is any probable fluctuation in the demand for services which affect reckonable expenditure, an obvious example of which is a variation in the numbers of the school-age population. Third is the need for developing the services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop them. All these factors have been given their due weight in arriving at the figures embodied in the Order.
In considering expenditure proposals for the next two years the dominant factor is clearly the general economic situation of the country. I am glad to say that a full and realistic understanding of this fact has been shown by the representatives of the local authority associations throughout the lengthy discussions on the rate support grant estimates.
It is our firm intention to keep the growth of public expenditure within the limits which were announced in the White Paper of 16th January, 1968, in order that we may divert an increasing proportion of the national resources to earning an adequate surplus on our balance of payments. To achieve this result we must, with the co-operation of the authorities themselves, set firm limits to the growth of local authority expenditure over the next two years. This is a significantly large component of total public expenditure. Total local authority expenditure amounts to about one-quarter of all public expenditure. Taking revenue expenditure, it is about one-sixth of the entire public expenditure. So we are dealing with very large sums. It is also the part which has been growing fastest for a good many years now.
Nevertheless, far from local authorities having been singled out for specially heavy cuts, their expenditure is being allowed to increase in both years of the next grant period at a higher rate than public expenditure as a whole. The obligation which this places on local authorities to contain their expenditure within the limits now proposed is, I think, well understood by all those who have taken part in this year's discussions, and I intend to ensure that it is brought home to all local authorities.
What, then, is the basis on which we have estimated reckonable expenditure? As the House will recall, the White Paper of last January said that the Government expected local authorities as a whole, in 1969–70, to restrain the level of their expenditure so that it did not in total exceed a figure in the region of 3 per cent. in real terms above what had already been agreed for purposes of the Exchequer contribution in 1968–69; and that the Government would propose rate support grant for 1969–70 on this basis when the time came.
That time has now come. We have estimated the total of reckonable expenditure for 1969–70 at 3⅓ per cent. in real terms above the expenditure of 1968–69 as estimated for the purpose of last year's increase Order.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The Secretary of State has referred to the increase in real terms. What is the percentage increase in money terms?

Mr. Ross: The figures are all in the Order. The hon. Gentleman can easily work them out. To help the hon. Gentleman out, an explanation of the Order is readily available.
The additional ⅓ per cent. which is equivalent to about £1 million, was not a concession to the generally higher level of the local authorities' estimates, but is recognition that on one rather ill-defined group of services the estimate adopted in the original Order for the first grant period was evidently too low. Between the first and second years of the grant period the increase in real terms for which the estimates allow is 5 per cent.
What is meant by the phrase "in real terms" will, I hope, be clear to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), from Appendix A to the Report on the Order. We are comparing the reckonable expenditure figures for this year, next year, and the year after on a common price basis, and saying that the difference of £10·3 million between them, and of a further £16 million for the second year, is a true measure, at current prices of the additional resources represented by the figures for the two later years.
The differences express the amount of additional resources which will be available in those two years to support the


increased provision of services, as a result of policy changes or changes in population structure; and to support the improvement of standards, including the cost of loan charges on the additional capital expenditure allocated to these services during the period.
Here I should remind hon. Members again of what local authorities were told in the White Paper of last January. The base for calculating growth was to be the figure of reckonable expenditure embodied in the 1968 increase Order. If, as the Government hoped, they had succeeded in absorbing part or the whole of the increase in costs due to wage and price changes, this would not have lowered the base figure. The fact that they have not succeeded in holding down expenditure this year, although I recognise that they have made an effort to do so, and that their expenditure for this year as shown by their rate support grant returns will be over the 1968 Order figure by about £5 million at November, 1968 prices, does not raise the base. What it does is to raise the rate demands.
It means that they have anticipated some of the growth allowed for next year in terms of the White Paper strategy, and that the growth in real terms for which the present estimates of reckonable expenditure allow is correspondingly less. It does not mean that the limits we are proposing on expenditure in 1969–70 are unrealistic, but it does mean that local authorities will have to exercise the utmost self-restraint in order to remain within those limits while still achieving the expansion of some services which is necessary and for which the estimates provide.
Local authorities are not, however, being asked to absorb increases in the level of prices, costs and remuneration which may occur during the grant years. Certain known increases at future dates, such as in police pay and overtime, are provided for. Otherwise, we envisage that increases of which the effect on reckonable expenditure is substantial—those are the words in the Act—will be dealt with by increase Orders made in the usual way. They can, therefore, plan on the assumption that the level of support through the rate support grants will be maintained in real terms. In Appendix B to the Report there is an indication of the likely pattern of expenditure, and in Section B of the

Report will be found notes on the development of the main services. In nearly all cases the estimates represent a curtailment of growth rather than a reduction in standards.
Not all services need to develop at the same rate. One which has to grow more than most is education; the increase for this service allows for a steady rise in the teaching force, which will make it possible to improve staffing standards in our schools, for the expected rise in pupil numbers, and for the continued expansion of further education. Taking the two years together, the increase is about £13·8 in reckonable expenditure on education.
The estimates of reckonable expenditure under the heading of child care also allow for the costs of implementing the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 in the course of the period. As the House will know, local authorities will be setting up the new social work departments in November of this year. This will mainly involve at the start a redeployment of the authorities' existing resources to provide an integrated service. It is my intention that the system of children's panels should be introduced during 1970–71 and the estimates for that year make provision for extra expenditure for this purpose. I cannot yet give a precise date.

Mr. John Brewis: Surely, if the Social Work (Scotland) Act is to be implemented in November the local authorities must go on with obtaining premises, employing staff and so on, long before November. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has allowed enough in the estimates?

Mr. Ross: We are satisfied. We discussed this fully. I do not want the authorities to engage in empire-building in respect of new offices, and so on. First, they have to get down to the integration, using their existing resources. We have mainly made provision for the appointment of the new directors of social work.
Local welfare services will form part of the integrated social work service. In the local welfare field, local authorities have in the past two years been building up quite a substantial programme of work, particularly on residential accommodation for old people, much of which will come into use during the next two years. Even


with the restraints on loan sanctions for new projects which had to be introduced last year and are likely to have to be continued, the work already in hand and continuing represents a substantial degree of progress; and it is in recognition of these specific commitments that the Order provides for relatively high growth rates for these services.
For police services—the largest of the specific grant services—account has been taken of the effects of the most recent police pay award, operative from 1st September, 1969, and introducing a shorter working week effective from 1st April, 1970. In the middle of last year it was regrettably necessary, in the light of recruitment trends at that time, to impose selective restrictions on police recruitment in order to hold total strength at a level consistent with the target underlying the Order for the current rate support grant period. For the next two years the present Order makes provision for recruitment of additional police officers and supporting civilian staff. A circular will shortly be issued to police authorities about the removal of the current restrictions.
One field in which the figures we have adopted imply not merely restraint on the growth of current expenditure but a fairly severe cut-back is that of highways and roads lighting. The Government decided last year, and announced in the January White Paper, that a substantial contribution to the economies required must be looked for in this field. Hon. Members will remember that we told the local authorities in Scotland, in a circular issued on 30th May, 1968, that the Scottish savings expected were £3·05 million and £3·1 million on maintenance expenditure during this year and next year, and £·75 million and £·9 million on new construction. According to the rate support grant estimates which they supplied, they have not succeeded in bringing down their expenditure in 1968–69 to the required level.
Nevertheless, their representatives recognised in the discussions that there is a much higher degree of flexibility in this area of expenditure than in most others, and that it is one in which considerable short-term economies can be made. They should be able, having had 15 months' notice of what is expected

of them, to bring expenditure in 1969 to well below the current year's level, and I am confident that the necessary effort will be made. We must remember that to set against the savings that I am asking and expecting them to make, the local authorities had a bonus of £4·8 million of extra work on their own roads met by 100 per cent. Government grant in the winter of 1967–68. This winter they have had a further £1·5 million—again at 100 per cent. grant. They have put these sums to good use.
The road portion of the needs element will reflect the estimate of roads expenditure which has been adopted for purposes of the Order, and this reduction will no doubt stimulate thoughts of economy on the part of highway authorities. The provision for the second year of the grant period will allow expenditure to return almost to the current year's level. The second year's figure should represent a transition stage on the way to a higher level of maintenance expenditure after 1970–71 if the state of the national economy permits.
I do not know what the hon. Member for South Angus finds amusing. This was written into the General Grants Act passed by his Government. It is still there, and always applies to this and all expenditure.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose——

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make a speech. I hope that it will be a little brighter than usual.
In accordance with the Government's undertaking to bear an increasing proportion of local authority expenditure which would otherwise fall on the rates, Exchequer assistance has been stepped up to 64·5 per cent. for 1969–70 and 65·5 per cent. for 1970–71, compared with 62·5 per cent. for 1967–68 and 63·5 per cent. for 1968–69. These percentages result in the aggregates of Exchequer assistance being fixed at £200·31 million for 1969–70 and £213·85 million for 1970–71, compared with £171·56 million and £184·63 million for the two previous years under the 1968 increase Order.
From the aggregates of Exchequer assistance so arrived at there has to be deducted the total of the grants towards


specific services. These have been estimated at £18·086 million for 1969–70 and £19·218 million for 1970–71. The balances remaining become the rate support grants, which are accordingly fixed by the Order at £182·22 million for 1969–70 and £194·63 million for 1970–71, compared with £155·44 million and £167·74 million for 1967–68 and 1968–69 respectively.
The Order, as I said earlier, not only determines the amount of the grants but prescribes the way they are to be distributed. As hon. Members will recall, we deliberately chose to have the flexibility in these arrangements which results from their being prescribed in the Rate Support Grant Order and not the Act itself. This gives the opportunity to make desirable changes rather than waiting for a new Act.
This year some changes are proposed, which are briefly described on pages 7 and 8 of the Report.
During the summer and autumn of 1968 representatives of the local authorities, in association with officers of my Department, examined the working of the distribution formulae prescribed for the first grant period in the 1967 Order, and a number of proposals for changes by individual local authorities. The result of these discussions has been the recommendation of some important changes of principle in the system to which the Order now before the House gives effect. These changes, which were worked out with the active co-operation of local authority officials, have the almost unanimous support of the associations—Edinburgh, of course, excepted. They are aimed at closer correlation between the incidence of expenditure and the distribution of grant. The results are generally recognised as an improvement, but they are capable of further refinement, and the discussions are to be resumed.
Inevitably, changes of formula will involve shifts of grant. There will be smiles on some faces—I can see them now—and there will be frowns on others. I notice that the Edinburgh Members are not exactly smiling, and the Glasgow Members are showing a certain measure of appreciation of the good will and good sense of the Government.
The shifts of grant will be fairly marginal except in the case of a few rural

counties which contain a large burgh, where a rather larger loss to the counties and gain to the large burghs has to be accepted in the interest of a general improvement in the grant arrangements. By and large, the effect of the changes will be that the sparsely populated authorities will find themselves—and I want them to note this—with a lower share of the resources element but a correspondingly higher share of the needs element, while more populous authorities will in general be compensated for losses on the needs element, because of the higher sparsity weightings, by gains on the resources element. This compensation will not, however, be available to the small number of authorities which do not qualify for resources element.
The other main features of the revision will be the introduction into the needs element distribution of a weighting for population changes and an increase in the weighting value of education units which, as hon. Members will know, are based on the estimated cost of education at different stages.
The revised distribution arrangements affect only the resources element and the general portion of the needs element. The distribution of the roads portion of the needs element, which has still to be looked at, will continue in the second grant period on the same basis as in the first. For 1969–70 it will amount to £6·116 million and for 1970–71 to £6·593 million. The balance—or general portion—of the needs element, amounting to £123·684 million for 1969–70 and £130·017 million for 1970–71, will be distributed in accordance with the revised system of population weightings. To keep the maximum increase in rate poundages due to the revised distribution formulæ to not more than 1s. in the £, £113,000 of the general portion of the grant for 1969–70 will be distributed directly to the authorities named in Appendix F. This is referred to in the Order as the transitional portion.
The resources element will, as hitherto, be distributed to rating authorities whose rating resources do not come up to a certain standard—the standard 1d. rate product. The review of the distribution arrangements has resulted in the omission from the formula for determining standard 1d. rate products of all weightings except the variation weighting. This will avoid the over-compensation of a few


authorities for their deficiency in rating resouces which is a feature of the present system.
The financial provisions of the Order have been negotiated in an economic setting which calls for clear thinking and hard decisions about priorities on the part of local no less than central Government. It is essential that members as well as officials, joint boards as well as rating authorities, and all committees —not just the finance committees—should bend their minds to taking these decisions in the next few months. The needs of the taxpayer and the ratepayer demand that they should take seriously their responsibilities in setting out their priorities rightly and playing their part in restraining expenditures of this nature.
I commend the Order to the House.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Secretary of State has tried to make the best of a difficult job in presenting the Order. I will start by saying that, in the economic circumstances in which the country finds itself —the cause of which lies at the door of the Government—public expenditure has to be suddenly restricted. But the right hon. Gentleman should not try to conceal the effects of the Government's proposals in this Order. The effects will be cuts or postponements of local authority programmes or additional burdens on the rates—probably all three. Let us make no mistake about this. It will be cuts, postponements or higher rates for two main reasons.
The first, as the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, is that growth is limited this year to 3⅓ per cent. above the previous year's expenditure. As the Report accompanying the Order states in paragraph 9, the annual rate of growth has in recent years been 6 per cent. or more. Therefore, restricting it to 3⅓ per cent. is a drastic course.
This may be necessary in the harsh economic circumstances to which the Government have reduced the country during the last four years, but what a reflection it is upon the Government's stewardship! It must mean that the local authorities, which have been operating on the basis of an increase of about 6 per cent. a year in real terms,

will have to cut or postpone. Of course, that is the intention. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling us a few minutes ago.
The second reason—and it is one upon which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch—is that this year there is to be no Increase Order for unforeseen extra expenditure which has occurred during the present year. There is nothing to offset, as is usually done every year, unforeseen increases in costs since they were considered a year ago. Usually when we have a new grant Order there is an Increase Order as well for the year which is the current year.
The Prime Minister hinted at this in his Statement a year ago, which became the text of the White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd. 3515. In paragraph 51 of that White Paper, he stated:
As regards 1968–69, the Government will expect local authorities to absorb any increases in cost which they cannot avoid by making savings elsewhere.
If that is not a euphemism for cuts I invite the Secretary of State to think of a better one. The local authorities are expected to absorb the extra costs—and there have been some, as I shall show—without an Increase Order. They are also limited in the growth of their expenditure to almost half of what they have been used to—3⅓ per cent. as opposed to 6 per cent.
I will refer to transport in relation to costs. In our debate on 25th March, 1968, dealing with the Increase Order of last year, I pointed out to the Minister of State that the Budget which had just been introduced would increase the costs of transport because of the extra fuel duty and the increase in the vehicle licence duty. I pointed out that extra costs for local authorities operating vehicles would ensue from those increases in transport costs. I pointed out that, because the Order had been laid on 4th March and the Budget was on 19th March, these costs could not possibly have been taken into account in the Increase Order we were considering.
I also pointed out that there would need to be a substantial amount in the Increase Order coming this year to take account of these taxes. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell me that this is all contained in the calculations which have led to the 3⅓ per cent. increase, that


is what I want to know. I ask directly whether the 3⅓ per cent. increase takes into account the additional transport costs which have occurred during the current year and which could not be foreseen or taken into account at the time of the last Increase Order? Or are these costs supposed to have been balanced, as the Prime Minister suggested, by savings or cuts elsewhere?

Mr. Ross: I thought that I had made it perfectly clear that there is no question of euphemism. We told the local authorities last year that there would be no Increase Order this year. They knew it. The only person to whom it seems a mystery is the hon. Gentleman himself. This Order deals not with this year but with the next two years. Of course, in real terms, as I explained, it takes account of the question of costs. I also explained that unforeseeable substantial increases—due to salary increases and the rest—would be met in the usual way by Increase Orders. So the hon. Gentleman's sole point is related not to what is before the House but to what was before the House very much earlier.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman may say that now. Although it is usually the case that unforeseeable extra costs to come are dealt with in subsequent Increase Orders, the Prime Minister may again say that there will not be any Increase Order next time. This is what happened last time. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed, as I expected he would, exactly the two points I am making. The first is that there is to be no Increase Order because the costs are supposed to be absorbed by cuts, and the second is the restriction to 3⅓ per cent.
The Secretary of State is trying to gloss over this but clearly there has been drastic action because the country is in the serious economic circumstances caused by the Government's mismanagement. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman himself for the economic mismanagement of the country, although he is guilty of mismanagement in Scotland. Some of his colleagues dealing with economic affairs are responsible for the mess.
In these economic straits, the Government are probably right to restrict this part of public expenditure in the way

they suggest. It is unfortunate that this should be necessary and a bitter reflection on four years of Labour's mishandling of the country's economy. The local authorities and their ratepayers will suffer. The ratepayers will inevitably feel the impact later in the form of higher rates. And this comes from a Government who have been in office for nearly four and a half years and who told ratepayers that they would reduce the rates by taking on to the Exchequer the whole cost of teachers' salaries. The local authorities will find that the continuity of their programmes will now be upset and they will have to find ways of changing them. It must mean inefficiency when such unforeseen changes have to be made at fairly short notice.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: No doubt the hon. Gentleman recognises a certain inconsistency between himself and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who spoke earlier on the Chancellor's statement about public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman called upon the Government to reduce below 1 per cent. per annum the increase in public expenditure, whereas the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Secretary of State for Scotland has got it just about right. Will the hon. Gentleman bring out that point more clearly?

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to point out that I have been saying the same as my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I have been saying that, in the present circumstances to which the Government have brought the country, it is probably right that they should restrict this part of public expenditure in the way they have stated.

Mr. Maclennan: By how much?

Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen. He has posed a good question and I am glad to answer it because I can explain again what I am saying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West was dealing with the whole of public expenditure. The Secretary of State pointed out that local government expenditure is about one-quarter of the whole of public expenditure. I say that the restriction proposed is probably right in the circumstances. But I regret the circumstances because


it means that the continuity of local authority programmes is adversely affected. No doubt the local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in others, have been planning ahead and it is upsetting that this should have to happen.
I recognised that, in the economic circumstances in which the country finds itself, this has to be done, but I regret it. If we had been in office during the last four years, industry would now be booming in Scotland, no one would have heard of the Selective Employment Tax and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders would have a splendid future before them. [Interruption.] However, I must not be drawn by hon. Members opposite into making these comparisons because I shall get out of order. I merely wanted to remind the House of the different situation we would have had in Scotland if we had been in office.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the new formulæ for distribution, and I know that one or two of my hon. Friends hope to catch your eye and speak on that aspect, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise another point, that of storm damage. In our debate a year ago, the Minister of State said that he was still waiting to see what the costs would be and how the local authorities could be assisted. This was a Scottish disaster and it caused additional expense in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how much of the extra 3⅓ per cent., if any, has been allocated in the miscellaneous part of the grant, or whether it has been dealt with by specific grants.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): There is a Supplementary Estimate dealing with that. I made it clear last year that we would deal with it by specific grants to specific local authorities, so obviously it is not contained in this Order.

Mr. Campbell: I am glad of that. It was left very vague in the hon. Gentleman's Statement last year and I am glad that he is able to confirm it.

Dr. Mabon: It was not vague.

Mr. Campbell: I have a copy of HANSARD here. I will not read out the statement, but the hon. Gentleman made it clear, two months after the hurricane,

that it was difficult to say in what directions the expenditure would arise and that therefore this was a matter to be settled when it came up this year. He seems to have made it clear that, if there was anything more to be said, he would say it later.
I come now to the question of rents, covered in paragraph 6(a) and Schedule 4 of the Order. The Government are continuing the operation of encouraging certain local authorities gradually to raise rents to what no doubt the right hon. Gentleman considers a reasonable level by means of a formula—that of a percentage of gross annual value. This percentage rises by as much as 125 per cent. taking into account rent rebate schemes for 1970–71. But, two years ago, in furtherance of the prices and incomes policy, the right hon. Gentleman reduced the percentages by 5 per cent. to take account not only of the prices and incomes policy on rents but also of the revaluation in Scotland at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman at present appears to be trying two things at the same time. First, he is continuing to encourage the raising of rents to reasonable levels—for otherwise, under the gross annual value formula, the local authorities are liable to lose some of their grant—allowing also for rent rebate schemes. Secondly, under the prices and incomes policy, he has been dissuading local authorities from making certain increases.
Two questions arise from this. First, under the percentages and the formula presented in the Order, will any local authorities and, therefore, their ratepayers be penalised by losing grant because of a prices and incomes policy direction from the right hon. Gentleman or another Minister? Secondly, can the Secretary of State give an assurance that in the last three years no local authority in Scotland has been penalised by losing grant because it intended to increase its rents in order not to lose the grant and then, under the prices and incomes policy, it was directed not to do so?
I come to another point which arises under reckonable expenditure in Appendix B in the Report. Under "Other Services" about £13 million is allocated for each year. This is described as for housing improvements, among other things. Is it supposed to cover the special


expenditure likely to arise on work which may have to be done to the high multistorey flats which are having to be examined as a result of the Ronan Point disaster? It seems unlikely, because very little is known about what needs to be done and what expenditure will be incurred.
Following the Ronan Point inquiry, certain local authorities in Scotland were told by the Government to appoint consultants to consider whether the strengthening of certain high buildings was needed. No doubt this is a very necessary precaution. In reply to Written Questions from me yesterday, the Secretary of State said that nothing had been arranged about grants to meet the considerable expenditure and disturbance which could be caused but that the matter was still under discussion.
Tenants are likely to suffer inconvenience and expense when they are moved out while the work is being done. In addition, ratepayers in the areas concerned will have to meet the bill for the whole operation unless a grant is made to cover it, including the construction work. Local authorities cannot be blamed for the fact that structural alterations may have to be made or the buildings evacuated. As the buildings met all the safety standards when they were constructed, the local authorities should not be financially penalised. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to say something about this subject.
I end by making a comparison of sums in this Order with the equivalent Order for England and Wales. In the coming year, 64·5 per cent. of the reckon-able expenditure in Scotland is to be met by the Exchequer. This continues a differential which has existed for many years. The equivalent percentage for England and Wales is 56. Therefore, there is a differential of 8·5 per cent. The Exchequer covers a considerably larger proportion in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) is not present and has not been here since the beginning of this important debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "She is just coming."] Now that the hon. Lady has come in to the Chamber—and I am sure that I shall be forgiven for repetition in this case—may I again point out that one sees from

a comparison of the Scottish Order with the Order for England and Wales, the differential of 8·5 per cent. is being continued, and 64·5 per cent. of local authority expenditure in Scotland in the coming year is to be covered by the central Government. In the equivalent Order for England and Wales, the percentage is 56. This continues a differential which has existed for many years. That was the case under the preceding General Grant. Those who contend that Scotland is getting a raw deal financially should bear this point in mind. Virtually all local government expenditure in Scotland attracts a much higher percentage of grant from the central Government than in England. That has been so for a considerable time.
The Order ushers in an even more difficult economic period for local authorities in Scotland and their ratepayers. It is a period of stringency, and I think that the Secretary of State agrees with that. I recognise that the economic situation demands drastic containment of public expenditure, but I blame the fact that it is being imposed on local authorities with little warning upon the Government's mishandling of the economic situation. This is a sad reflection on the failure of their policies for the economy of this country.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): In view of the time factor and the fact that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, I appeal to those who are successful in being called to keep their speeches short.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) laid great stress on the Government's failure to get the economy going. He said that the people of Scotland would soon be faced with rate increases. I was in local government for a long time. For three years I was treasurer of the City of Glasgow when the Conservatives were in office, and I remember having to put up the rates every year. I seem to be the Member who is always complaining about how unfair the grants were to Glasgow.
We all agree that the balance of payments is all-important to the prosperity of this country. I remember coming to


the House of Commons in 1964 and being faced with the dilemma of wanting to get ahead with increasing the social services and laying the basis for a Socialist Britain but having to accept that we could not do it because we had a terrible balance of payments problem. We had an awful situation to deal with. When the Conservatives were in office a booming Britain was built on a false basis. It was built on a consumer boom, and we have never made up the deficit which was left hanging round our necks. The balance of payments was in an awful state. We were supposed to have a booming Scotland built on industries in the state left by right hon. and hon. Members opposite—mines overworked, railways run down, uneconomic pits and old, ageing factories. Is that the basis on which we are to build a booming Scotland?
Scotland has lost 100,000 jobs. Many people make great play of that fact. But no one points out that Scotland has gained 100,000 jobs in new scientific and technological industries. We have had to restructure industry, and that is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
Obviously, no one likes paying rates or taxes. But when I was a member of the Glasgow Corporation I remember the housing subsidy being slashed almost without warning from 42 to 18 per cent. Now, with the new rate support grant, we see from the little pamphlet issued in Glasgow every year that in 1967 and 1968 the rates were reduced by 10d. and 1s. 8d. respectively. Next year they will be reduced by 2s. 6d. When I was treasurer in Glasgow, I should have been very pleased with a rate support grant as generous as that given by my right hon. Friend which took care of 2s. 6d. worth of the domestic rate.
I made a speech on the Adjournment complaining about Glasgow's situation—the diminishing population, the density grant and metropolitan weighting for the grant. There is still no density weighting in the Scottish rate support grant, and I must confess that I am a little sorry about that. Birmingham gets £277,000, Liverpool £389,000 and the City of Westminster £192,000 under the density weighting in the English rate support grant.
I am delighted with the concession made by my right hon. Friend, by which Glasgow will benefit by almost £½ million. I have in the past sat opposite the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and his Ministers trying to get the local authorities to appreciate the needs of Glasgow and to agree amongst themselves. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the job he has done in getting local authorities to agree to population changes within the rate burden.
I am slightly disappointed. Glasgow, although it gets £½ million, is faced with a tremendous expenditure which this £½ million will scarcely look at. I read in the Glasgow Herald this morning that Glasgow is retracting from the project at Erskine. I appreciate the reason for it, but it is with great regret that I see this drawing back from this most imaginative Erskine project. I am worried that we may now go into a period of retrenchment and that, even though the rate support grant is fairer than hitherto, there will be a slowing up in the great comprehensive redevelopment of Glasgow. If the development programme is put back even by six months, the citizens will be deprived in that period of nearly 2,500 houses. I hope that something may, even at this late stage, be done about this.
The population of Glasgow in 1961 was 1,054,000; in 1966 it was 979,000; in 1967 it was 960,000; one might almost say it is a rapidly diminishing population. The citizens who remain cannot be expected to bear the tremendous burden imposed upon them by the most imaginative and enduring programme of development in Europe.
I ask my right hon. Friend, in considering future reorganisation of the grant, to ensure that the accumulated burdens of the past will be made lighter by an enlightened rating policy. If the Local Government Commission reports, as I hope it will, on a regional basis, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that opportunity to ensure that the development of Glasgow will not be held up through lack of money.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) made an interesting speech about Glasgow, but I am afraid I am unable to follow him since I do not know


Glasgow well enough. I do, however, share one thing in common with him, that I too was a finance convener of a county before coming to this House.
The Rate Support Grant Order covers the two years 1969–70 and 1970–71, which are the two years in which the Prime Minister in his statement last January said that we would begin to feel the impact of the reductions in the grants available to local authorities. We all deplore that this is necessary because of the economic state of the country, but we realise that certain reductions must be made.
Local authorities when forecasting estimates for 1969–70 made an estimate of £322·1 million. The Secretary of State has cut this down. I say at once that it is essential for the Secretary of State to look at the estimates in the context of what is available to Scotland, but he has cut down the estimates to £300·3 million, a very substantial reduction, almost £22 million. Only after that reduction do we get the 3¼ per cent. added on, which is the increase about which he has been speaking. This is a substantial reduction; reductions go on every year, and must affect the quality of service in Scotland.
The figures came down from £322 million to £300 million, and I understand that the loan charges were reduced by slightly less than £1 million. This represents the starts on capital projects taking place next year. The reduction in loan charges of about £1 million grossed up represents a considerable number of capital projects which have been deferred. After discussing this with the local authority association, the right hon. Gentleman put that figure up by about £450,000, in other words it was split roughly 50–50. This is an extraordinary rule of thumb way of going over the estimate. I understand that the Department queries amounts as low as £200 on local authority estimates. Perhaps we could have an explanation of how these capital cuts have been worked out.
We in this House are continually giving local authorities further duties to perform, many of which are concerned with the social services. For example, we have today in Committee passed a Clause in the Education (Scotland) Bill dealing with the child guidance service,

which is now to become a duty instead of being discretionary. The amount involved will not be large, but it is symptomatic of the extra duties being put upon local authorities.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act, which was supported by both sides of the House, involved a separate organisation for social work. We are to have directors of social work in future who are to be competent, well-qualified people, and they will require a salary commensurate with their abilities. There will be about 56 local authorities looking for directors of social work, who are not plentiful and whose salaries are, therefore, likely to be substantial. It was also decided that the social work system should be so laid out that people could go in through one door to consult the various services, and be passed on to the probation service, the child care service, or whatever service was appropriate. This will mean that extra money will have to be spent on premises.
Assuming that a director of social work will receive perhaps £3,000 a year, and that there will be capital expenditure on buildings, my local authority reckons that it will cost in a year between £5,000 and £8,000. But what is set aside for this service in the first year is only £155,000, and the Wigtonshire share of that is about £1,200 in the first year, compared with an expenditure between £5,000 and £8,000; so they will get nothing like 64 per cent. or 65 per cent. of the expenditure by way of grant.
Another recent Act, the Sewerage (Scotland) Act has not yet been put into operation. On the other hand, there are places which are waiting for the Act to become operative. In Kirkcudbright, for example, there is a desirable development of private house construction which is waiting for the Bill to become operative so that connections with the drains can be made. This comes under the specific grant. I notice, under the specific grant, that the amount to be spent on this service is going down from 1969–70 to 1970–71. There is a reduction in the estimated amount of expenditure, so it does not look as if the Bill will come into operation before 1971. It seems a very strange thing that the Bill should be brought in, passed through the Scottish Standing Committee and passed through this House last year, and it does not


appear to be likely to be brought into operation until 1971. I wonder whether the Minister of State can give me some information about it when he winds up, because, as I have said, certain housing developments are being held up by the Act not being in force.
I want to ask a question about coast protection. The expenditure on coast protection comes under the main rate support grant. It is one of the other services at the bottom of the list. I understand that the amount available is distributed among all the counties. This seems very surprising, because some counties in Scotland have no sea coast—for example, Lanarkshire—while other counties have a considerable problem with coast protection. As it is included in the figures of the rate support grant, I imagine that all counties are getting a proportion of the money set aside for coast protection, and it is not being kept just for those counties which actually use the money.
Why does not coast protection come under the specific grant? I think that a grant of about 75 per cent. can be obtained if work is being done to protect a principal road. But for any other work on coast protection which is needed there is no extra grant available. In the old days, if a county spent more than a fourpenny rate on coast protection, I believe that some help was available.
I ask this particularly, because a year or two ago, there was a storm which affected the Isle of Whithorn, and the county council had to come in and repair the harbour and sea defences. Otherwise, in time the village would have been flooded. The county council spent several thousand pounds on it, but it was unable to get any grant. I feel that coast protection is a subject which should be looked at.
The last point I wish to make concerns changes which have been made in the formula for distribution of grants. I notice that certain counties, like Inverness and Dumfries, have come out of it rather badly. Although Inverness County has come out of it badly, Inverness Burgh has done extremely well. When these counties get transitional relief, as is set out at the bottom of one of the tables— I think that Inverness County is getting nearly £100,000—at whose expense is

this £100,000 provided? Is it com from the rest of the pool which wo be available for other local authorit in Scotland?
There is another aspect of the formula which I enter on with some trepidation. It always seems surprising, when one looks at the rates in counties in Scotland, that there seems to be a distinct batting order: one gets West Lothian normally about the highest rated county and Clackmannan following fairly closely. We know that counties which have Socialist administrations often spend a great deal of money. I will not go into whether it is well or badly spent. I will instance Wigtonshire and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright. The Stewartry of Kirkcudbright is always very well administered. Its rates are very much lower than, say, West Lothian and Clackmannan, but also very much lower than Wigtonshire which follows very much the same policy and has the same area. The difference between the rates assessed is comparatively large. The last figure I have for West Lothian is about 27s. 6d. while Kirkcudbright and Moray is down to about 13s.
The formula, which has been changed, has made a certain amount of difference, but the batting order is still very much the same. Clackmannan has moved into first place and West Lothian into second. Moray, which used to be the lowest rated, is now one from the bottom while Kirkcudbright is at the bottom. It seems we are talking about needs and resources, but we should be able to get the rate poundage over Scotland very much closer to some sort of mean. I know that I am on rather slippery ground here, because the actual expenditure of counties comes into it. However, I should be interested to know whether the Minister of State thinks that the present formula will be more satisfactory than the last or whether he thinks that there should be more amendments made in future years.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: It is always a pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). He appears to speak from his experience of local government. In this way he has helped to modify the rather more bitter comments which have come from the benches opposite.
I should like to respond to two points which the hon. Gentleman made. First, the cost of the child guidance service. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, replying to that point this morning, said that in his view it would not cost local authorities more.
On the point about social work, anyone listening would think that this was going to mean great increased cost to local authorities. But I should like to put this point to the hon. Gentleman. The social consequences and the cost of vandalism and child neglect are so high today that the question really is not whether we can afford the cost of discharging this work but whether we can afford not to. Consider, for instance, the consequences and the cost involved for inmates of prisons, hospitals and deprived children. I suggest that these costs should be weighed against the prospective costs here. While there will be a temporary period in which they will be running together, we hope that ultimately the costs relating to deprived children and the consequences of bad social conditions will be omitted.

Mr. Brewis: I should like to say how much I agree. My point was that the necessary expenditure is not getting the correct percentage of grant.

Mr. Hannan: I will leave that to another time.
I will try to cut short my remarks, particularly as they follow the same line as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan).
I make no apology for stressing one or two points. It may be the fault of myself, among others, that the magnitude of Glasgow's development plan, for example, in terms of clearances, overspill, the resiting of offices, factories and warehouses and problems associated therewith, have not been adequately stated often enough in this House, nor appreciated by Members on both sides. Glasgow has not got the metropolitan status of other cities in the United Kingdom. Despite adopting high densities of housing in the redevelopment schemes, an overspill of no less than 60 per cent. of the existing population must be anticipated. This means a dogmatic change. With no large areas of suitable undeveloped land left within the city, the provision beyond its boundaries of

accommodation for this overspill is the governing factor.
The speed at which redevelopment can be sustained is dictated mainly by the rate at which ground can be cleared and accommodation made available in the reception areas, and there are already signs that this pace is slackening. What is the position at Elderslie? As I understand it, because of the delay in coining to a decision, the programme there is six months behind schedule. This inevitably means that the comprehensive development areas within the city—and we know that ultimately there are to be 29—will take longer to complete. There will be a slowing down of the process all along the line. Already it is being said that this year Glasgow will provide 2,500 fewer houses than it has in recent years.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen Press reports that the majority administration of Conservatives and Progressives in Glasgow has decided not to take part in the out-county scheme for city overspill in Erskine, Renfrewshire.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Order before the House.

Mr. Hannan: In that event I shall shorten my remarks, but I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some information about this, because if there is a hiatus it will endanger the grant which is likely to come from this Order. These reports in the Press show how a change of administration can endanger the progressive policy of the 29 development areas. Their development will be slowed down if there are signs of retrenchment.
In view of the great changes that are taking place in schools, in houses, in libraries, in transportation, and in the building of new commercial colleges in Glasgow, changes which are being carried out with courage and imagination, I think that it is appropriate to ask what contribution the grant system makes to all this. My Parliamentary colleagues who, like myself, represent Glasgow constituencies, city councillors on both sides, and above all the ratepayers of Glasgow, have for a long time felt deeply dissatisfied with the so-called "objective factors" by which these grants are distributed—the former


general grant and now this the rate support grant. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the improvement which these proposals will bring about in Glasgow, but I hope that he will not think me churlish if I say that it is only a modest improvement. The size of grant is not yet anything like commensurate with the huge sums of money involved in the changes that are taking place in Glasgow.
I am the last person to be thought of as being sympathetic to the present trend of nationalism in Scotland, but we can make comparisons only if we consider the position in cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool, and one finds that different factors are employed to assess the rate support grant in England and Wales. Having said that, it has to be conceded that my right hon. Friend must be congratulated on the concessions that he has made, which means that the proposal which has long been argued for by hon. Members on this side of the House is now to be accepted.
Appendix G of the Report shows that a population variation weighting will be used in distributing the needs element for 1969–70. On my calculation, it will be worth 72,080 units of weighted population. If my arithmetic is right, and one unit is equivalent to about £8 of grant, Glasgow will get an additional grant of £576,000. This is welcome, but it should be noted that this is not a net gain. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that about one-sixth of that is paid for by Glasgow through a reduction in the grant value of its other units, and that Glasgow has also to pay its share of the higher sparsity weightings. Nevertheless, the net gain to Glasgow is a little over £500,000, and is of appreciable assistance to the ratepayers.
I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend and to the other local authorities for their consideration of the problems with which Glasgow has to wrestle. The evidence is there for any who care to see it. In Glasgow, and in fact throughout Scotland, tremendous changes are taking place. Those who are churlish about spending money ought to look at the credit side, and think of the wonderful city that Glasgow will be in the 1970s. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend

that they are paying such attention to the problems of Glasgow.
Whatever our ideals about new towns, decentralisation, or the provision of modern living standards and amenities—and we all want to see progress in these matters—it is sad to see a big city losing its citizens to other areas. When this happens—and I hope that this is not lost on the Government—the city's problems, financial and otherwise, are borne by those who remain in the city. Because Glasgow is responding to the wishes and exhortations of Governments, and because, too, of the obsolete pattern of local government boundaries, it is only fair and proper, in justice and equity, that those ratepayers who stay behind should be helped by the Government to carry the accumulated burdens.
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the adjuration which was uttered earlier, that Glasgow still requires help, and that, like Oliver Twist, will no doubt come back for some more.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: We are dealing with a complex subject. I do not pretend to know all the answers, but I wish to draw the Minister's attention to what is happening in Edinburgh as a result of these proposals. I assure the Minister that the position there is very serious, and that the city authorities are deeply worried.
Edinburgh receives no share of the resources element. The thing that is causing the most difficulty is education weighting. Under the general grant system, weighting was given for all schoolchildren under the age of 15. But, under the rate support grant needs element of 1967–68, weighting was restricted to those children at local authority schools. Edinburgh was hit because it had 6,880 pupils at grant-aided schools and 5,680 at independent schools, who were all excluded from the calculation. Now there is to be a further change, and because of the weighting given to education units Edinburgh will be very badly hit.
The nature of the city's difficulties will be shown by the following figures. In 1967–68 her share of the needs rate support grant was £9,497,000. As a result of these changes, it will fall by £664,000 or 7 per cent. That represents at least 9d. on the rates. Bearing in


mind how difficult it is to contain expenditure within certain limits, and remembering the effect of the incomes policy on ratepayers' ability to meet extra burdens, it will be seen how serious this withdrawal of money is.
Costs are rising in the city, transport costs particularly. It will be difficult for Edinburgh to maintain the continuity in some projects which have already been begun. Cuts will be necessary and other items will be postponed. The situation has been described to me by the Edinburgh authorities as "grim" and we face a rate rise of 9d.
I believe that the Government have a scheme for giving financial help to an authority which will have to raise its rates by 1s., but why only 1s.? By fixing it at 1s., it seems that the Government are expressly trying to exclude and hit Edinburgh. I do not understand why Edinburgh must face this financial burden and even less why her reasonable request for help and transitional arrangements was not granted. Surely some adjustments along these lines could be made.
I doubt whether in all Scotland's history a local authority has been so shabilly or unfairly treated by the central Government. I cannot vote against the Order, much as I would like to, because if I did it would stop financial help to other authorities, but I issue my protest on behalf of the city at the way that it has been treated. This Government are clearly hostile to Edinburgh and its people. The Secretary of State said earlier that hon. Members for Edinburgh were looking grim about these proposals. I can tell him that, after the next election, there will be seven Unionist Members for the city and that our faces will be wreathed in smiles.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: I was tempted to rise by what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark-Hutchison) said. I also represent Edinburgh and I and my constituents will have to pay these rate increases. But we should get this matter in perspective. What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that for many years Edinburgh has enjoyed a highly privileged position in Scotland because of its number of grant-aided and independent schools and the way in which the grant was distributed. Not only is

Edinburgh relieved of great educational expenditure, but it also benefits because of the distribution under the formula about which the hon. Gentleman is complaining. For a long time the city has been benefiting at the expense of practically every other local authority in Scotland, which is surely grossly unfair.
I do not like my rates to rise any more than the hon. Gentleman does, but we must be fair. Although he is right to draw the Government's attention to the effect of these proposals on Edinburgh, particularly at present, we cannot quarrel with something which institutes fair play. After all, all local authorities are entitled to the fair deal which these changes will bring. Edinburgh has been privileged in many other respects in local government expenditure. Its public halls have all been built by generously-minded public citizens—Usher Hall, MacEwan Hall and the rest of them. Edinburgh spent very little on them. Most of the attractions in Edinburgh are the result of Government expenditure. King's Park and the Botanical Gardens did not cost Edinburgh a thing. Edinburgh has made an attractive city by Government expenditure and that of generous citizens. Even the Zoological Gardens were started by private people—Lord Salvesen and one or two others. Our amenities have been immensely improved, and not at the ratepayers' expense.
When contesting the municipal elections, hon. Gentlemen opposite claim these low rates of Edinburgh as the result of their great business management of the city's affairs, but that is a lot of poppycock. The low rates are due to our being subsidised by the Government and private people and having enjoyed for so many years these great educational advantages. We should recognise that, sooner or later, a day of reckoning had to come.

Mr. Hector Monro: Why?

Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman want his local authority to continue to suffer because Edinburgh is enjoying a privilege?

Mr. Monro: That is not the issue.

Mr. Willis: Yes, it is. If this change is not made, his local authority will be worse off. Is he going to tell his constituents, "I voted that Edinburgh should


enjoy a privilege and I am sorry that you are worse off as a result"? That is the logic of the argument——

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East) rose——

Mr. Willis: There is another one who is apparently going to tell his constituents, "You must be worse off so that Edinburgh can enjoy these privileges"——

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has it escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention that the local authorities will be worse off as a result of this Order.

Mr. Willis: That is not true, of course. His hon. Friend raised the changing of the formula and the effects on Edinburgh, and I was saying that we should get this into perspective and remember that practically every local authority has suffered because of Edinburgh's privileged position. That is why no other local authority supports Edinburgh in this or is clamouring to keep the status quo. No, it is Edinburgh alone.
By all means draw attention to the effects of this change. The Government are endeavouring to meet the difficulties that are being experienced. However, hon. Members should not run away with the idea that there is something unjust in these proposals. For the first time we are getting justice as between Edinburgh and other local authorities. For this reason I would find it difficult to oppose the Government in this matter. This seems to be a better system for proceeding between local authorities, and while I am sorry in some respects for Edinburgh, sooner or later its privileged position had to come to an end. The Government have done that, and I believe that these proposals will make for better local government.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I trust that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the tortuous paths of the Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh. I wish to address my remarks to the problems of my constituency, for in a debate such as this one must keep in mind only the important points.
I make no apology for returning to the problems faced by my own constituency,

the County of Banff. I have often raised this matter during the four-and-a-half years that I have been here. The basis of the trouble lies in the fact that although the county is mostly rural in nature, agriculture and fishing being the prominent industries, the bulk of the population lives within burghs and those burghs are extremely small.
We see on page 12, in column 12, of the Report by the Secretary of State that there is no entry against Banff. The reason for this is not hard to find. Table 3 on page 6 of the Order lays down the formula by which adding-in of weighting is given for various propositions, notably for population. Counties which have under 50 per cent. of their populations living in the landward portion of a local authority do not qualify for any weighting. Only 29 per cent. of the total population of the County of Banff, 44,500 people, live in the landward area. The rest reside in the burghs.
But—and this is a very large "but" —there are 11 of these small burghs in the county. Their populations vary from 797 to 7,644. Seven of the 11 are under 2,000 in population and many of them take pride in their long tradition as burghs. For example, the Burgh of Portsoy, with a population of 1,725, was created a Burgh of Barony as long ago as A.D. 1550. Thus, by an act of history, all the ratepayers in Banffshire are penalised under the present Order.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government's mind is not closed to further alterations in the formulae which lay down the distribution of this grant. It has not gone far enough for Banffshire and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of this, as I admit he has done in the past. He has acknowledged the problem, but, unfortunately, he has not gone far enough. I hope that he will continue to examine the matter until we get satisfaction.
One possible solution would be to count all the burghs—indeed, throughout Scotland this could apply because there are other areas affected in the same way—with a population of 2,000 and less as part of the landward area when it comes to the weighting question in the operation of the formula. I appreciate that this may happen after the Wheatley Report is implemented, but that may not happen


for three or four years. In the meantime, the ratepayers of Banffshire will continue to suffer. I urge with all the force at my command that the position should be favourably considered and remedied before the next General Grant Order is introduced.
In most respects the situation of Kincardineshire is similar to that of Banffshire, but fortunately for Kincardine, it has no problems with its small burghs, and thus Kincardine has nearly 50 per cent. of its population taken into account for the weighting factor. Banff, on the other hand, gets nil. This is unjust and is another reason why we must have some alleviation. This situation prevails notwithstanding the representations which I and the county council have made to the Scottish Development Department direct and through the Association of County Councils.
Despite these representations—and it must be agreed that Banff's problems have been admitted at all levels—the county is still marginally worse off under this Order compared with the 1967 Order. We are worse off to the tune of £1,662. In other words, the rate-borne expenditure will increase by that amount over the whole county.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is, under the present Order, a complete revision of the needs element. Under this revision Banffshire will be better off by £45,461, but on the resources element we will be worse off by £47,249. It is not possible to do a simple subtraction and arrive at the net figure of "worse offness", taking these two factors into account, because direct and specific grants also come into the question.
The Minister of State may say in reply that rate burden per household in Banff is lower than that of any comparable area. That is true, but such a statement needs close examination. There are many elderly retired people in the county. There are other households with far less opportunity to earn overtime and with fewer youngsters bringing in money. To be fair, the Government must look at the wage and salary earnings capacity of households. In other words, they must compare like with like. It is not only a question of comparing areas such as my constituency with smaller areas such as Kincardine, but a question of looking at the

central belt of Scotland as well, for in that area incomes are much higher.
On page 5 of the Secretary of State's Report we read in paragraph 20:
… expenditure on the maintenance of non-principal roads … must continue to be severely restricted".
That is a false economy, particularly in Upper Banffshire where the roads are taking a tremendous beating from heavy traffic from the distilleries, quarries, and so on. They were not built to take such a beating. This is becoming an increasingly difficult problem. If the roads portion of the needs element is kept at its present level, in years to come we will have some extremely hard problems to solve in this connection.
I am told that to maintain roads adequately they should be resurfaced every six or seven years. The county road surveyor in my area tells me that in Banff, if the present system continues, it will be 14 to 15 years before the roads are resurfaced. In addition, the shoulders of the roads are often over precipitous slopes so that the conditions under which drivers of lorries must operate—not only in the inclement weather which we have at present, but throughout the year—represent a hazard to life.
This brings me to the question of snow clearance. This year we will be faced with a very heavy bill indeed. Last year was not so bad and the amount of money expended on snow clearance was very small. However, this expenditure will have to be wholly rate-borne unless the Government intervene under earlier Statutes because this factor of snow clearance is not covered by the Act which set up these rate support grants.
I therefore urge the Government to take a close look at this matter, and I hope that the Minister of State will assure me on the subject when he replies.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) will understand if I concentrate on the problems of the County of Sutherland, which are quite different from those facing his constituency.
I must, first, comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). I assure him


that my hon. Friends will scrutinise with the greatest care any statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly by the Opposition Front Bench, about the need for cuts in public expenditure, particularly in view of the acceptance by the Opposition that the figure of reckonable expenditure by local authorities in Scotland should be increased by about 3⅓ per cent. in the forthcoming financial year.
I wish principally to draw attention to the anticipated effects of the proposed redistribution of the needs and resources element of the rate support grant on the rate burden of the local authority of Sutherland. I understand that the proposals stem from a review which was undertaken by a Committee into local government finance and which is continuing its deliberations. May we have an assurance that the proposed redistribution is not final and that the anomalies which seem apparent to me can be ironed out in the coming year?
I have been in continuing discussion with Lord Hughes on this subject and I need not weary the House by going into the details of the problem as it affects one local authority in Scotland. I assure the Minister, however, that the concern felt by that local authority over this matter is considerable. The main problem relates to the redistribution of the resources element which has constituted 75 per cent. of the grant in Sutherland. If I am correctly informed, this figure will be reduced to 57 per cent. and will lead to some difficult budgeting problems for the local authority in the immediate future.
This results from the changes in the population weightings used to determine the standard 1d. rate product, and in particular from the removal of the road mileage weightings. I well understand the difficulties of working out a formula acceptable to every local authority in Scotland. The hon. Member for Banff amply demonstrated the obverse side of the coin and the difficulties that we shall have so long as we retain our present local authority boundaries. This debate underlines the urgency of a review of these.
We all look forward to the Wheatley Committee's report. It is to be hoped, however, that the continuing review of the method of distribution of the needs

and resources element will not have to wait upon the outcome of that report. Can the right hon. Gentleman be specific about how it is intended to compensate local authorities suffering a diminution, through the alteration of the resources element by the increase in the needs element? Would he explain what this means for the County of Sutherland?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: The Secretary of State came into the Chamber with an unusually bright countenance. I do not think that he will find that local authorities are smiling as happily about this Order. They have a lot of difficult decisions to make due to the mismanagement of financial affairs by the Government. They are making desperate economies in expenditure, but further economies are limited if services are to be maintained. This is most important. With costs going up local authorities will do exceptionally well to prevent rates rising steeply this year.
It is right that we should keep expenses and rates down, but it is a very difficult battle with costs rising all the time. In the last few years we have based our calculations on a rise of 6 per cent. To come down to just over 3 per cent. will be very difficult. The Government should not think that they are being very generous. It will need a really intensive rearguard action by local authorities to maintain these rising costs within bounds. A point that has not been mentioned much is the very big effect that interest rates have had over the last four years and the staggering debt that most local authorities are running up.
The Government are passing legislation each year—far too much of it—which in nearly all cases tells local authorities that they have to spend more money. In some ways it is wrong for the Government to keep doing this without taking the blame for the increasing costs incurred by local authorities in carrying out new Acts. Looking at some recent legislation, one can appreciate the cost to local authorities.
The Secretary of State mentioned the social work measure. It is one which we welcomed, but we should not dodge the issue that it will cost a great deal of money in the long run. In this coming financial year there will probably be only the salaries of a minimal number


of staff, but in the years to come it will be a heavy burden. More recent acts, like the Water Resources Act, which was a severe penalty on the small burghs, the Sewerage (Scotland) Act, and the rising costs of transport, as a result of the Transport Act, have added to this burden.
There is a false economy—and the Secretary of State should not glower with horror at the thought of it—over the maintenance of roads. As the hon. Member for Banff said, roads in country districts, particularly those roads which carry heavy traffic, perhaps due to timber extraction, coupled with the extra wear and tear as a result of snow clearance, incur expenditure on which it is foolish to cut back. In Scotland, we want to set an example to tourists with good roads and bring them back each year. All these new burdens that local authorities have to bear have a very unsettling effect on them. What they want to concentrate on is attracting new industry and expanding the economy of their areas. What they would also like is a period of stability, without new measures being thrown upon them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about the rate support grant.

Mr. Monro: It is very difficult to do anything in a local authority without the money. The Government's base expenditure for this grant is considerably less than the local authorities anticipated. The formula for the grant was previously absolutely incomprehensible, and even now it is hard to understand. It creates serious anomalies in rural areas. I hope that the Secretary of State will continue his discussions with the local authorities, the County Councils' Association and others, to try to find an acceptable formula for these rural areas, particularly with regard to the maintenance of roads, which is one of the biggest heartburns of local authorities. I am glad that the Order has been brought in, but it has not made life much easier for the local authorities.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I rather regret that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) returned to the theme of his hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). The debate has been subdued; Members

have sought, quite legitimately, to put points about their constituencies. The hon. Member has come back to the party line. It is a great pity that, when we deal with local government services we talk in terms of spending money and virtually never in terms of the vital services being rendered, very cheaply. Who among us would be prepared to empty our own dustbins, to get rid of waste from our homes, or to supply ourselves with water or perform any one of the multitude of services rendered through the local authority?
It is interesting to compare this with what happens in other countries. Those of us who have read Galbraith's "Public Squalor and Private Affluence" might have some knowledge of this. Hon. Members opposite do a great disservice to the needs of the nation, irrespective of which party happens to be the Government, by deriding this, presenting it as if it were a question of spending money and not one of paying for services rendered—and paying very little in comparison with the areas covered and the nature of the services rendered.
There are almost inexorable pressures upon any Government in a civilised society. If we talk in terms of increases in the amount of rates being paid, we have to see how these increases have been moving. I did a little exercise and took the total current expenditure on rates in the United Kingdom over three separate periods of three years. The first was 1962–64, which could be said to be concerned with the party opposite. The increase in expenditure was 20 per cent. For the period 1964–66, a mixed period for administrations, the increase was 27·5 per cent. I then took the period 65–67 —I stopped at 1967 because the Blue Book I was using did not go beyond that period—and the increase there was 25 per cent.
We can see that these things are increasing. When the hon. Member for Dumfries talks about throwing duties upon local authorities, he does not disapprove of those duties. He normally supports them. He supported the social work measure, he supported more money being spent on roads. He wants more money spent on schools, especially in his area, although I grant that he probably wants it spent in other areas, too. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who is not present,


is regularly pressing the case of the police. My right hon. Friend can no doubt tell us how much those costs have been rising.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly pressing for increased expenditure, and equally constantly they cry out against this expenditure, posing as though they were people who would cut expenditure. There is nothing like being honest in such a matter. If we want these services, and we do, we want more of them, then we must tell the people that they have to be paid for. One great distinction between members of my party and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that we believe in extending the area of collective responsibility.
We think that so much can be done better on the basis of the acceptance of collective responsibility, whereas hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly niggling away at this, and trying to suggest that it could be done so much better privately. When it comes to the crunch, they find that they cannot do it privately, and they are ready, like so many others, to dip their hands into the public purse.
I want to raise two constituency points. It is very strange that a town like the joint Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw gets no resources grant. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was complaining about the harsh treatment meted out to his city. If he looks at the situation in Motherwell, then at the amount being paid to Edinburgh, and measures this against the population of Motherwell, he will find that Motherwell is getting very much harsher treatment, merely on the basis of what money is paid. Motherwell gets no resources grant at all. There is an enormous valuation placed upon the steel works there.
It is very strange that Motherwell has an industrial valuation which is about twice that of the City of Dundee. When we examine this we find that it does not always work out to the advantage of the local people. I am making a plea, maybe I will not get much change from my right hon. Friend, that he should take account of more things than mere heads in an area. This formula is still based on heads, and roads and the ages of people. It should be extended. Look at the problem in some areas. I have

a great deal of sympathy for those who have spoken about Glasgow.
Think of the enormous task that it is in itself to make a city like Glasgow habitable, according to the standards we want to see. Glasgow is an excellent city, but so much requires to be done and the cost is so great. Similarly, in my own area there is a town that came into existence as a steel-coal town, but is being rebuilt at enormous cost; and if I may say so, this rebuilding gets very little, proportionately, out of the central purse. I make that plea and will make a further plea.
In my own area we would very much like to help Glasgow with its overspill problem. We are very keen and ready to lend a helping hand. Proposals have been put forward to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend. We appreciate that not everything would be granted that might be asked, but there is one comparatively simple thing which might well be accepted. If Motherwell and Wishaw is to assist Glasgow, then at least Motherwell and Wishaw ought not to be expected to carry the whole burden of building the houses. This is all we ask at this stage, that there should be the assistance of the Scottish Special Housing Association in building houses in the joint Burgh of Motherwell-Wishaw. If this were done much could then be done to assist in this great development project going forward in the West of Scotland.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something on these questions and that he might be optimistic about finding an answer. In the meantime, in the economic situation that exists and of which we have heard so much, the Government are doing exceedingly well and I compliment them upon it.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) rather disappointed me, because, in his first remarks, he said this had been a somewhat subdued debate and I expected him to come in and liven it up. But having tried to castigate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for dealing with matters affecting his constituency, we were then entertained by the hon. Gentleman to a general philosophy about local authority spending, and


he proceeded to deal in his own area with the subjects with which my hon. Friend had dealt a few moments before.

Mr. Lawson: I was complimenting hon. Members on the subdued and moderate nature of the debate and regretting the fire and flood that we so often get from the other side.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Both sides will welcome the opportunity such a debate offers to have a discussion such as we do on no other occasion in the year, on the matter of rates and local authority spending, something which affects our constituents so much. The other great opportunity we have in a debate like this is to raise particular matters which affect our own constituencies and our own local authorities. As ever, we were entertained by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and his description of fair shares for everybody and fair play for everybody, and his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark-Hutchison).
In a debate like this I always feel that there is something wrong with an hon. Member if his claim for fair shares does not mean a rather bigger share for the area he represents; and I thought the hon. Gentleman's speech was slightly out of keeping with previous utterances. I only hope that the people in Edinburgh will note what he has to say.
In general, this debate falls into two main parts and it is the main part, which is the most important, with which I would like to deal—what is being spent by the Government in supporting local authority services and how it is distributed between different services; and secondly, methods of distribution and in particular the needs element and the resources element. This has been raised by many hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South spoke of the way it affects his constituency and his own city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) spoke with his usual persistence. No one in the House has been more persistent in raising particular problems of distribution over many years. He not only raised the question, but he put to the Minister of State concrete suggestions. We on this side of the House will look forward to

hearing what the Minister has to say on that when he replies. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised similar problems affecting distribution in his particular area. I have some sympathy with the Minister of State in having to deal with questions of the distribution of the needs and resources elements, because it must require the wisdom of Solomon to try to please everybody in making a distribution.
I would like to raise a particular point in relation to the population factor which has been taken into account. In paragraph 3, the Secretary of State's report says that for the first time fluctuations in population are to be taken into account. Obviously, this is a very important factor as it will affect different authorities in different ways.
What is particularly noticeable here, comparing our Scottish Order with the English and Wales Order debated in December of last year, is that whilst the Scottish Order is based on estimates of population from the Registrar-General at the end of June last year, for the first time in an English Order, as well as considering the Registrar-General's figures, 1966 sample census figures in support of population changes have also been used. From what one has read of that debate in the House in December, these threw up quite different movements in population from those shown in the estimates from the Registrar-General and had quite a marked effect on the distribution of needs element of towns such as Birmingham, which happened to have a contracting population moving outside.
Obviously, this has an application to towns like Glasgow. We have heard about overspill. I would like to hear from the Minister why these other figures from the sample census have not been taken into account in the Scottish figures, to give a more up-to-date and realistic figure of population, so far as distribution is concerned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said, we on this side accept the need to restrict Government expenditure. We have pressed for it to be restricted in view of the current economic circumstances of the country. We condemn the Government when they try to dress up


their grants, as I believe the Secretary of State did this afternoon, as being particularly generous when they are not. We appreciate the difficulties, but he tried to put a gloss on the position when speaking of local authorities, a gloss that does not really belong there; because we have to recognise that when the estimates of expenditure for 1969–70 were negotiated with local authorities and estimates of local authorities exceeded the eventually negotiated sum of reckonable expenditure by over £11 million for 1970–71. For 1970–71 they still exceeded by £11 million the reckonable figure eventually agreed. Therefore, whether we like it or not, the fact about the rate support grant is that the Government give less to local authorities than local authorities themselves believe they need.
We appreciate why. There is a natural tendency for local authorities to pitch their desires fairly high so as to get as much as they can. We sympathise with that. The Secretary of State is wrong to put any gloss on this by claiming that he is being generous in the Order, because he has not met the desire of the local authorities in this matter.
What we come back to every time is the fact that the debate on the need for the support grant and the restriction of it stems from the need for stringency, which arises from the Government's failure to manage the economy. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) tried to blame this, as is so often done by hon. Members opposite, on mismanagement of the economy before 1964, harking back to balance of payments deficits, and so on. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), after the last General Election, stated that there were no alibis now. Yet we still have this balance of payments crisis argument and this mismanagement of the economy argument thrown at us, which is what underlies the failure of the Secretary of State to be able to meet the local authorities' need.
The real thing for which we on this side condemn the Government is the effect that this will have on rates. The question we must ask is: can local authority expenditure be kept to those agreed estimates? Over the last two years the actual expenditure of local authorities exceeded the reckonable expenditure,

even taking into account the increased Orders. In 1967–68, actual expenditure exceeded reckonable expenditure by over £3 million. In 1968–69, a year for which we can use only the close estimate, because we have not actual figures to work on—actual expenditure exceeded reckonable expenditure by over £12 million.
Where must the money come from to meet the difference between the reckonable expenditure, even taking into account the increase and the actual expenditure which local authorities must incur? The only place it can come from is out of the rates. It is true that through the domestic element there is a certain amount of relief for householders, but we must remember in these debates that for industry, trade and commerce there is no relief and their costs are rising, which increases the costs of industry and everything else in Scotland.
It is for these reasons that we condemn and criticise the Government. Despite the rate support grant and despite everything that the right hon. Gentleman said in introducing the Order, we find that the rates go remorselessly upwards; and they keep going up regardless of what he does. This puts local authorities into a very difficult position. As many of my hon. Friends have said, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and Dumfries, they are faced with the dilemma of being charged by Parliament and by the Government with carrying out new social services, yet have must try to work within a very restricting budget and in the face of rising costs.
All of us sympathise with the local authorities in the difficult position into which the Government have put them. It is, therefore, no wonder that at this time the question is asked: why are our rates rising so fast, and what are the Labour Government doing about it? This question was asked in one of the Labour Party's own pamphlets— "Go Ahead Scotland"—back in 1965. Nearly four years later we in the House and the people in Scotland are still wondering when the Labour Government will find the answer.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am obliged to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for that


winding-up speech. This is the first time that I have had a chance to welcome him to his new responsibilities. I do so with pleasure. I am sure that he will have a happy time speaking from the Opposition Front Bench and that he will be doing so for many years to come.
I shall return later to some of the points that he made, because they rehearsed some of the points made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). I have not had the opportunity of congratulating that hon. Gentleman on his elevation to new responsibilities, either; and I take sincere pleasure in doing so.
I want to take up the argument advanced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns about the formula. I agree that the making of the formula is very difficult. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), who has persistently argued the case of Banff and the need for a change in the formula, exemplified this difficulty. The hon. Gentleman knows how hard I tried on behalf of my right hon. Friend on last years's increase Order to persuade local authorities to change the formula in midstream. The local authorities refused. On reflection, I think that they were quite right, although at the time I was a little disappointed. The hon. Gentleman regretted the refusal of the local authorities. He calculated that the benefit to Banff would have been about £290—admittedly a paltry sum, but, nevertheless, a symbol at least of the changing formula.
This year we have made a change in the formula, albeit one which some people do not like. This is the judgment of Solomon. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) told us what political mileage the Unionist Party in Edinburgh would make from this change, but he did not acknowledge that the Unionist Party elsewhere would suffer badly if it wanted a return to the previous formula, because it would hurt so many Conservative Members so much.
The hon. Member for Banff cannot do the sum now, and I do not blame him for that. However, I want him to have a look at this in preparation for the speech he will make on next year's increase Order so that he can see the outturn, at least for the present, of what

is likely to happen in the first year of the operation of formula.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has, perhaps, the greatest difficulty of all. The population of his constituency is less than one person to every 100 acres. The authority already gets over 87 per cent. of its expenditure met by the taxpayer. It is, therefore, very difficult to devise any formula which will fit the peculiar circumstances of Sutherland. By any set of weightings which was chosen—and about 200 variations were worked out by our computer—there are bound to be some authorities where the grant works out to be slightly more and others where it will be slightly less, whenever a change is made. Sutherland, which has the biggest sparsity weighting, will get a little less. Although this was not the intention, it is, nevertheless, the out-turn. This is very difficult to arrange.
I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that if Sutherland adjusts its budget methods to the figures which he quoted, that change, which I think is long overdue, will make a difference. It is not reasonable to push equalisation to such lengths that, as as present, we give to the county of Sutherland £23 more of rateable resources per head than we do to the City of Edinburgh. I accept my hon. Friend's point—it perhaps might be called the post-Wheatley argument— that counties like Sutherland would best be dealt with in a wider reform of local government which took away the basic physical disadvantage which Sutherland must inevitably face
I return now to the vigorous speech made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. It was one of the shortest speeches in the debate—that is typical of the hon. Gentleman—but it got the maximum political mileage out of the situation. I am greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for his courageous and vigorous speech, in which he pointed out that Edinburgh had enjoyed a substantially favourable position for many years under both Labour and Conservative Governments, and only now was it being altered because of the position of other Scottish counties.
According to the figures of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants


in Scotland, the rateable value per head of population in Edinburgh is just under £38, as against an average of £33 10s. for the four cities. The average rate-borne expenditure per head in Edinburgh, after deducting the needs element, is £38 14s. 6d., as against an average of £43 18s. 10d. for the four cities.
From these figures it is impossible not to conclude that the present grant distribution system is unduly favourable to Edinburgh and that the Edinburgh ratepayer has been too well treated up to now. I realise that this is an unpalatable thing to swallow, and I do not ask the hon. Gentleman or any of his Edinburgh colleagues to agree with me.
The slight changes made in the formula will by no means wipe out the disparity between Edinburgh and the rest; it will still be in a favourable position. It may well be argued by the other authorities that this disparity should not continue even with the present change. I counsel hon. Gentlemen that before they start to take Edinburgh's side on this they should consult their local authorities about the formation of the grant.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked whether I would confirm that we have continuing discussions about the formula. It is true that we do, but after our experience with local authorities last year I doubt whether we can change the formula, or try to do so, every year. I could not promise my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that anything could be changed in a year. We should have to wait and have lengthy arguments—extending over 18 months in this case—on what the formula should be and what its out-turn would be in terms of the different counties.
I should like to make a correction of substance to the argument of the hon. Member for Galloway about the coast-protection grant. We do not give it to all authorities including those that are landlocked. It is paid at the rate of 50 per cent. to authorities which carry out approved coast protection schemes. The amount of these specific grants, which are capital grants—that is why they do not appear in Part C—is deducted from reckonable expenditure before we strike the rate support grant. We should get that right, because it would be a point of grievance, and we have enough of

them without misunderstandings about grievances that do not exist.
Two speeches that my right hon. Friend and I were particularly appreciative of were those of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who explained that they could not be present at the end of the debate. Like other hon. Members from Glasgow, they argued the case for a change in grants, particularly rate support grant, along what they called the argument of the metropolitan weighting, which applies only to the Greater London area.
It might, perhaps, be argued that Glasgow is the natural parallel in Scotland, but this weighting is exclusive to one authority. We have tried in various ways to take account of what Glasgow has argued. We have concluded, and the local authorities have agreed somewhat reluctantly—in Edinburgh's case very reluctantly, that we should make this shift in the form of the grant which the hon. Member for North Angus touched on. That is the significant point of this formula. But that rate support grant alteration giving Glasgow an advantage in every year of about £500,000, whilst I appreciate that it is welcome to the city and is a sacrifice by some authorities in Scotland, cannot be the end of the story.
I say to all the Glasgow Members that it is not up to the Government to prove their case. Glasgow must prove it, not by assertions. None of us on either side of the House will be content with assertions. There must be reasonable projections of capital investment. Every one of us, whatever part of Scotland we represent—central or elsewhere—recognises that Glasgow has a peculiar difficulty in trying to re-create itself in about 35 years. There are enormous financial problems. While the Government do a great deal, I accept that there may be a case for their doing more, but Glasgow must present it to us. There are no closed doors here.
With regard to the developments going on in the city now in policy terms, I hope that the Progressive Conservative Group will change its mind about the declaration it made yesterday and which was in today's newspapers. It is making a serious error over the 2,000 families that will be prejudiced if such a decision is


made. I accept that the slow-down in comprehensive development areas, which has already cost us 2,500 houses during the period to 1973, is far too big a sacrifice to be added to on grounds of financial restriction. This is very serious. The citizens of Glasgow, apart from the councillors, will have to take it seriously.
I return to the points made earlier in the debate. When read with the local authorities' estimates of the expenditure for the current year, the figures in the Order mean that the increase in the aggregate grants will be larger than the increase in expenditure, so that, even allowing for some increase in non-reckonable expenditure, the total amount raised in rates next year will not have to go up if local authorities succeed in containing their expenditure within the Order figures. That relationship between grant and expenditure will hold good despite any changes over the next 12 months in the level of prices and wages, if, as the Government envisage at present, an Increase Order is made in the usual way. Inevitably, some local authorities will have to raise more money from the ratepayers, because some expansion in their services is just taking place, or because they are in the middle of some large piece of capital investment. Local authorities in general should approach next year's budget with the firm intention of stabilising or in some cases bringing down their rates.
If there is a significant rise in the rate call as a whole, it can only be because local authorities have failed to shape their spending policies in accordance with the Government's economic strategy as it applies to them. Discussions with the local authority associations have shown a great readiness on the local authority side to co-operate in this policy. We in the House have a responsibility not to exaggerate the real practical difficulties which face many of them in so doing, But they must accept that the Government are taking on a larger share of the expenditure of local authorities, as witness the fact that in the second year of the Order we shall be bearing 65·5 per cent. of the reckonable expenditure.
When the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns speaks again on rate support grant, as no doubt he will, he will want to look back to the time, if there ever was one, when the Conservative

Party accepted that burden as part of the taxpayers' share of local government expenditure in Scotland. He will have to go back a very long time to get such a figure, and I doubt whether he could do so.

Mr. Ross: He will not.

Dr. Mabon: I am giving the hon. Gentleman a chance to make a confession on the Floor of the House that there was no such year, rather than seeking to be adamant about it now.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn raised the central point but did himself an injustice when responding to the interruption about the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) when he argued a case for 1 per cent. less. He canot shuffle out of this. Either he is in favour of 1 per cent. less, which means another 3·3 per cent. next year and 5 per cent. the year after, or he is in favour of 2·3 per cent. and 4 per cent. Those are figures in real terms, and they are exactly comparable to the kind of call the right hon. Member for Enfield, West made this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Order is right on the one hand and agree with his right hon. Friend on the other. He is either being deliberately ambiguous or contradicting his right hon. Friend.
I hope that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns will take it well when I say that I hope that he will not fall into the same kind of errors as his hon. Friend has over all the years I have debated such Orders with him. He always makes the mistake of debating the next Order and not the one we are considering. Last year he argued for the inclusion of storm damage cost in the Order and was wrong. If we had put the storm damage estimates in the general Increase Order, the local authorities would have come out badly.
The hon. Member argued today that we should put the Ronan Point figures in the present Order, without knowing what the elements of that Order are. We must wait to see the out-turn of the Ronan Point position as it applies to Scotland before we can decide how help should be given. Perhaps we shall decide it in the storm damage way. He knows that that is the right course. I


should much prefer the hon. Gentleman to debate the Orders we have rather than the ones ahead.
I am much obliged to the House for its kindness in receiving the Order as it did.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason)—
On Second Reading of Luton Corporation Bill, to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
This will not cramp the debate. The only limit on the debate will be the scope of the Bill. It will help the Chair if those who are for or against either of the Bills we are to discuss will inform the Chair so that I may endeavour to balance the debates.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. W. Howie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It seems that I have spent by far the greater part of today sitting on this bench. First we had the House of Lords reform Bill and now we have the Luton Corporation Bill. This is a fairly simple but useful financial Bill. Briefly, its purpose is to give the Luton Corporation an additional and cheaper method of borrowing money. The Bill will authorise it to raise money by the issue of bills and empower it to invest the superannuation fund more widely.
The borrowing powers the corporation seeks are dealt with in Clause 3. It would issue bills, to be called Luton Corporation Bills, which would be rather similar to Treasury Bills. I understand that they would be freely negotiable on the London money market and, therefore, would usually carry a rate of interest

rather below the three-month deposit rate. I am told that the saving might be about three-eighths to half per cent. I am also told that the G.L.C., using a similar means of raising money, has obtained a rate of interest of 71/16 per cent. compared with a going rate of 7⅞ per cent.
The Bill is not a great financial Measure, but it is not trivial. The total amount of money involved would be £1 million, and it is limited by Treasury regulations. This compares with a total borrowing by Luton Corporation of about £45 million. The saving would be about £4,000.
Money raised through the medium of the Bill would go into a consolidated fund from which the capital expenditure of the corporation would come in due course. The Luton Corporation Bills could be used to borrow in the expectation of revenue such as rates. If Clause 3 is defeated, the only effect will be that the money would need to be raised in a more expensive way, to the disadvantage of the ratepayers of Luton, their dependants and other citizens.
Almost exactly similar powers have been obtained by a number of other local authorities since as far back as the turn of the century. In the past two Sessions of Parliament they have been obtained by the Greater London Council, the Kingston upon Hull Corporation, Manchester Corporation, Somerset County Council, Cheshire County Council, Durham County Council, Lancashire County Council, Leicester Corporation and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation. There are many more going back over a substantial period. This would be a very useful addition to the borrowing powers of Luton, and I hope that the Bill will be accepted with Clause 3 intact.
The other important power in the Bill is in Clause 4, which is appropriate because it deals with a minor extension of public ownership. The Luton Corporation seeks power to increase the range of securities in which it can invest its superannuation fund. At the moment, it is restricted to an investment of 50 per cent. of the fund in securities, and I understand that it desires to increase its investment from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. It has given an assurance to the Treasury that, should the power sought in Clause 4 be approved, it would be


the intention to comply with the Government's voluntary programme of restraint on overseas investment and the new power in respect of overseas investment would not be used for the time being.
I think that I am known here as a man prepared to give credit where credit is due, regardless of party, and I therefore give credit to Luton Corporation for this modest but important extension of public ownership. Clause 5 permits the corporation to charge expenses in regard to the superannuation fund. The Clause 4 power has already been obtained by a substantial number of corporations, which I shall not list, although I have a list here.
I understand that there is some opposition to the Bill. In the past, a number of hon. Members have kept a close eye on Luton and its financial activities, especially as these activities are appropriate for debate and Question in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) is one of them. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is another. He and I have had many discussions about Luton affairs. Another is my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who is unfortunately unable to be present. She is in a particular difficulty in that, being a Minister, she is unable to speak in the debate.
I well understand the difficulty this gives rise to since I myself once faced some problems in dealing with a Luton matter in this House when I was a member of the Government. It is the kind of problem which a Minister, even so minor and obscure a Minister such as I was, has to face with fortitude, although sometimes ill-intentioned people take advantage of it in a political sense. I hope that my hon. Friend's difficult position will be properly and fully understood outside the House exactly as it is in the House. She, like the others I have mentioned, has been assiduous in her attentions to Luton.
I am also happy to welcome the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) to the club. I hope that we shall have the pleasure of his assistance in matters concerning Luton's financial affairs, just as the others have given theirs. The opposition to the Bill is, as I understand

it, ill-conceived and the fears which have been expressed are groundless.
Finally, I would merely say that the Bill has been tested to some extent before public opinion by means of a town poll. It is difficult to argue that the result of the poll was totally conclusive in arithmetical terms since no more than 6½ per cent. of the 100,000 people entitled to vote actually did so. Nevertheless, we must conclude that those who did not vote did not wish to do so and that those who voted expressed their attitude towards the borrowing powers which the corporation is seeking.
The result of the poll was that the Bill was supported by a considerable, though not overwhelming, majority of those who voted. I do not stress that greatly, but nevertheless the Bill has been tested before public opinion and, in so far as the arithmetic can be regarded as conclusive, we claim that it has the support of public opinion.
This is a useful Measure which should provide a marginal saving for the citizens of Luton. The borough council wants the Bill. According to the town poll, the citizens appear to want the Bill. I think that they should have the Bill, and I urge the House to give it a Second Reading.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) said that he liked to give credit where it was due even if it were to his political opponents. I would like to do the same. He introduced the Bill with great clarity. I do not know whether he was trying to reduce my anxieties and opposition to it when he talked about a slight increase in public ownership under Clause 4, but he knows that that is not my principal fear.
The hon. Member has said that the Bill provides an additional and cheaper way for the corporation to borrow money. He said that it would be disadvantageous to the ratepayers if it was prevented from doing so. My concern is that the activities for which this money may be spent —the capital projects he mentioned— may well be to the disadvantage, not only to the ratepayers of Luton, but to 580,000 others.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a narrow debate. We cannot discuss capital projects on which Luton may spend this money.

Mr. Goodhew: I was anxious about what the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said in reply to me in August, 1967, when he said that the Board of Trade has no power to make restrictions on aircraft movements. I thought I should try to seek a way of finding out——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but he cannot seek to do so on this Bill, which sets out to do certain things which have been clearly explained to the House. Luton Corporation wishes to raise some of this money by Bills and wants to invest some of its superannuation fund in certain ways. That is all we can discuss.

Mr. Goodhew: Naturally, I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I must look to some other occasion. Perhaps I can give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment on a suitable occasion.

7.12 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I want to intervene briefly on behalf of the Treasury to say that the proposal to use bills to convenience Luton Corporation and to cheapen the cost of borrowing is quite in accordance with Treasury policy. The method has a respectable ancestry and we see no reason why it should not be granted here.
The particular purposes for which the bills are applied would not be relevant, as you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I can give a reassurance that any application to use these bills for capital purposes, including matters connected with Luton Airport, would not be sanctioned under Treasury powers contained in the Control of Borrowing Order, 1958.
There is no Treasury objection to the power being granted. If there are any points of detail which hon. Members wish to put, they may be raised in Committee when I shall be happy to give the Treasury view. But there is, I repeat, no objection in principle to the proposal of the corporation so far as the Treasury is concerned.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) spoke of the result of the town poll. I assure him that, had the polling area been somewhat wider, there would have been a different result, because a great number of my constituents take a very keen interest in the affairs of Luton Corporation. Indeed, it is possible that, following the review of local government and proposals for larger units of local government, some parts of my constituency, or even the whole of it, will come within the scope of Luton and, therefore, inherit the financial position which exists in Luton at the time.

Clause 3 confers powers on the corporation to raise money. I would have thought that, if we are asked to grant powers to raise money, there would be some responsibility on this House to consider the consequences of raising the money. For example, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just said that massive elements of capital expenditure would not come under this scheme, but I am rather concerned with current expenditure. Last year, Luton Airport lost £118,000.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must find some other opportunity of debating his dissension with Luton Corporation on the subject of the airport. The Bill empowers Luton Corporation to raise some of its money in a certain way. It also gives it power to invest some of its money from the superannuation fund in a certain way. He may speak on those matters. This is a very narrow Bill and a very narrow debate.

Mr. Allason: I realise that, Mr. Speaker, but the Financial Secretary related it to capital projects. I was inquiring whether the £80,000 just spent by Luton Corporation in a great hurry really counts as a capital project.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Financial Secretary could not answer that question.

Mr. Allason: You are making life very difficult, Mr. Speaker, but I think that I have made the point that my constituents, at any rate, are greatly concerned about the effects of the financial arrangements of Luton Corporation.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) on the masterly way in which he asked for the Second Reading of the Bill. As he has said, it is a simple Bill. I would never suggest that he was at any time a man acting under authority, although this evening he may be to some extent a man acting for authority.
I have a natural interest in the Bill. In some sense, I probably have a greater interest in it than any other hon. Member, because I am also a ratepayer within the County Borough of Luton. Clearly, not only as an hon. Member, but as a ratepayer, I am interested in whether the Bill is an efficient way of doing what it sets out to do.
We are told by the Tory Luton Corporation that this is the best way of raising the money. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that he has no objection to the Bill. Naturally, he has not said that this is probably the best form of raising the money because it is not his function to judge whether it is the best, or perhaps the worst, way. The only way we can decide on whether this is the best way or the worst way is by looking at Luton Corporation and judging its frankness and its sincerity in some of the other actions it has taken. When any authority or organisation wishes to raise money, we are naturally anxious to judge its frankness and sincerity. This is why we are having this rather prolonged Second Reading debate on a simple Bill.
Things have happened over the last couple of years which may have caused some hon. Members to have doubts about the frankness and possibly even the sincerity associated with some of the things which the authority has done. There is certainly not the necessary frankness in the operations of this authority. I am not an expert in this matter, but I should like to quote from a local evening newspaper and refer to the views of a journalist of 17 years' experience about the frankness of the authority. Mr. Bainton's reaction to the council was this:
Chairman and councillors should never be too busy to inform the people they represent what decisions they are taking"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to something that Mr. Bainton said about the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is a ratepayer of Luton and he can raise any criticisms of the policy of the Luton Corporation in the city.

Mr. Roberts: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. My point, without dragging Mr. Bainton into the discussion, is that there are doubts about the accessibility of information to people in Luton. It is, therefore, difficult for them to formulate decisions on council policies.

Mr. Goodhew: To bring the hon. Gentleman back into order, may I ask him whether, being a ratepayer, he voted against the Bill in the poll?

Mr. Roberts: I voted neither way, because I was in Wales when the poll was taken.
Doubts have been raised about access of the Press to certain council committee meetings.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go into a general disquisition on the sins or virtues of the Luton Corporation. The council seeks to borrow some of its money by a special way in Clause 3. It seeks to invest some of its superannuation money in ways set out in Clause 4. These are the matters that the hon. Gentleman must speak about.

Mr. Roberts: I will try to keep in order, Mr. Speaker.
Openness must be a matter of judgment for any authority when it presents a Bill of this sort. There is also the question of sincerity. The party in office in Luton has been in power for a couple of years. If we look back at some of its words which it put before the electors of Luton——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss on this Bill the local government elections of two years ago.

Mr. Roberts: I was attempting to show, Mr. Speaker, that the party's actions be lied its words. The fact that it offered or suggested certain things to the people of Luton a couple of years ago—a reduction in parking meters, improved bus——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming almost intolerable. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Bill, or sit down.

Mr. Roberts: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill could make a useful contribution to the ratepayers of Luton. The only doubt which I have is one which I cannot develop, namely, how the present authority in Luton would spend the money.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BELL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Second Reading is moved, I have one or two observations to make. I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved)—
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to make provision for the adequate payment of compensation by the Greater London Council to householders who suffer loss as a result of policies initiated by the Greater London Council—
or the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)—
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to bring to an end the practice whereby the Greater London Council uses its own employees to value private property which the Council acquires by its powers of compulsory purchase instead of using, as do the majority of other local authorities, the services of the independent District Valuer, who is employed by the Board of Inland Revenue and therefore not regarded by the victims of compulsory purchase as being judge in his own cause.
This will in no way cramp the debate, which can be much wider than the previous debate because this is a general powers Bill.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is, I hope, an uncontroversial Bill which seeks to confer a miscellany of disconnected powers on the Greater London Council, the London borough councils, the Common Council of the

City of London and the Merton and Sutton Joint Cemetery Board.
The first power which it is sought to confer is contained in Part II of the Bill, which relates to what are called sludge mains. At the moment, local authorities have wide powers under the Public Health Acts to construct sewers without impediment provided that proper regard is had to the rights of the landowners and other people affected. A sludge main, which may be defined as a pipe or conduit used to convey the comparatively innocuous residues of treated sewage, is, for the purposes of those Acts, deemed to be part of a sewage disposal works and, therefore, is not legally a sewer. It is to facilitate the construction of these mains that the Bill seeks to have sludge mains treated in the same way as main sewers.
The Greater London Council has plans envisaging sludge main links between existing sewage disposal works, and the ultimate intention is to construct a sludge main either to discharge the G.L.C.'s treated sewage residues several miles out to sea or to take them to a point where they could be more conveniently transferred into ships for dumping at sea. This provision is to facilitate the making of those plans.
The third part of the Bill deals with what are called walkways. It has become increasingly common for pedestrian systems separate from road networks to be provided in urban developments. These routes run usually above ground level over private land or within buildings. Part III of the Bill, which very much follows the form of the City of London Corporation Act, enables the G.L.C. to make provision for walkways. In view of one of the Amendments on the Order Paper, I draw attention to Clause 21, which provides for compensation to be paid to people whose buildings, or even planning applications for new buildings, may be affected by conditions imposed by the G.L.C. in connection with walkways.
The fourth part of the Bill deals principally with matters of finance. Section 24 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1966, empowers the council to make contributions to London borough councils in respect of certain expenditure defined in that Act which can be regarded as money spent


by the council benefiting Greater London as a whole.

Clause 29 seeks to extend those classes of cases, so that expenditure on walkways and additional expenditure incurred as the result of longer hauls in which refuse collection vehicles of boroughs will be involved owing to the Greater London Council's plans for the rationalisation of refuse disposal throughout Greater London, may be treated in the same way.

Clause 30 deals with certain superannuation benefits contained in the council's general powers Act of 1968. It is sought to extend the Council's superannuation fund to contributors who are not employed by the council or by a London borough, for example, probation officers and justices' clerks.

Clause 31 seeks to empower the council to establish a housing advances reserve fund, and to permit the investment of moneys held in the fund. This will assist in identifying borrowing for home loan purposes and in providing a cushion to meet possible future deficiencies.

Clause 32 extends the power of the council and the London borough councils to invest their superannuation funds beyond the limits imposed by the Trustee Investment Act 1961, and the council's general powers Acts of 1967 and 1968. These wider powers are necessary so that full opportunity may be taken of the state of the market from time to time.

Clause 33 gives a power to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to appoint one of the local authorities in Greater London which would then be authorised under the Clause to borrow money for the purpose of lending to any other local authority. In other words, it would act as a clearing bank for the authorities in the Greater London area, and the centralisation of borrowing in this way should confer considerable financial benefits on the London boroughs as a whole.

Part V deals with documents and equipment. As may well be imagined, the council and local authorities accummulate a great deal of paper over the years, and storage becomes increasingly difficult. Permission is sought by the authorities to destroy the majority of these documents after a lapse of six years from their submission. This is

closely related to the Statute of Limitations, since any claim more than six years old may not, generally, be pursued in common law. For this reason it is felt that there is no need to keep papers beyond six years. The council is also seeking authority to destroy papers less than six years old, provided that it first makes a microfilm copy of the document to be destroyed, so that a condensed and easily stored form of record is maintained.

In Part VI, Clause 38 extends the time for the acquisition of land for Waterloo Bridge and the Strand subways, and Clause 39 extends the time for the completion of works in connection with the improvement of Wandsworth Bridge, southern approach, and the Western Avenue extension. This is because financial and other restrictions have prevented the earlier completion of these improvements.

Clause 40 deals with powers relating to flood prevention. Clause 41 seeks to authorise the grant of an exclusive right of burial by a London borough council or the Merton and Sutton Joint Cemetery Board under the hand of the clerk of the issuing authority or his deputy, rather than under seal. This is to increase efficiency and expedition.

Clause 42 clears up doubts on the present legal position by specifically enabling London borough councils to permit elderly people, and such other classes of persons as they may decide, to use public baths and washhouses without charge, or upon the payment of a reduced fee. There is uncertainty in the law whether the authorities have power to do this. Clause 43 increases penalties for offences under the street trading bylaws.

Those, in outline, are the miscellaneous provisions which the Bill contains, all of an uncontroversial nature, which I hope will recommend themselves to the House.

As there are on the Order Paper matters on which there will be a general discussion by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make a brief comment on each.

The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), contains an implied criticism of the attitude of the Greater London Council towards compensation for compulsory purchase. The hon.


Gentleman is doing the council less than justice. Ever since its inception it has continually pressed the Government to try to widen its powers for granting compensation. Representations have been made on such matters as planning blight, where a tradesman's business may have been affected over a period of years by clearance work around his shop. It has sought to increase compensation for injurious affection where business or residential premises may be badly affected by noise. It has made proposals that compulsory purchase compensation should be increased by 10 per cent. above market value, in recognition of the fact that the individual is having something taken away from him against his will.

These are all matters for the general law and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, over a year ago the Chartered Land Agents' Society produced an interesting report analysing the completely unsatisfactory state of the compensation laws, and making recommendations on how these might be improved so that greater justice might be done to the private citizen. Many of these recommendations are the very recommendations that the Greater London Council has been urging on the Minister. I recently asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government a Question on this report. He stated that the report was of such complexity, and raised such difficulties, that he was having to consider the matter most carefully, but there were continual consultations going on. He could not promise legislation immediately.

It is recognised that the compensation laws under compulsory purchase act most harshly and unfairly towards individuals. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should join with me in pressing the Government as hard as possible to bring forward a national Act that would deal with all these problems. Such questions are not relevant to this Bill. Had the Greater London Council sought in the Bill to widen the general laws of compensation, the Bill would have been lost completely; the Government would have insisted that the Bill be rejected. It is not fair on the Greater London Council to seek to criticise it in a matter which is completely outside its control and depends upon the general body of legislation.

If I may turn to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), this is a hardy perennial. We all know the very deep and sincere views that he holds concerning valuers, negotiating on behalf of a local authority, trying to fix a price on property when at the same time they are the employees and servants of that authority. I should say—and this is relevant also to the general remarks I was making on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford—that this again is a matter of legislation. Valuation officers are bound by statute on the way they may compute and calculate compensation. What is wrong is not the valuer, but the regulations under which he has to work. This is where we must seek an alteration.

District valuers, like all experts, will vary in opinions on a given set of facts. Nevertheless, they are all members of honourable professional bodies, and I believe that, by whomever they may be employed, they conscientiously try to do their job in the best possible way, complying with the laws that this Parliament has imposed upon them. I wish to remove any suggestion of criticism that might be implied against district valuers or valuers employed by the Greater London Council that may be contained in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North.

I hope, again, that he will join with me in the pressure which has to be brought upon the Government to try to have a change made in the laws on compulsory purchase compensation.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill. I make no apology to the House for having forced a Second Reading on this year's Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. I believe that too many private Bills presented by local authorities, affecting the fundamental rights of large numbers of people, pass through the Parliament procedure, sometimes with the very minimum of public scrutiny. I understand that there are very careful procedures upstairs, but on the Floor of the House these Bills often do not get the scrutiny that they ought to have.
Parliament should, quite rightly, concern itself with the details of the Clauses contained within the Bill. It contains proposals which will affect the lives of people both inside the Greater London area and outside, from the provision of sludge mains to the microfilming of documents. I urge the House to ensure that these proposals and their spin-off effects receive firm and deep consideration by the House tonight.
It will be a relief to the promoters of the Bill to know that it is not my intention to attempt to force a Division at the end of the debate—but that may not hold for all general powers bills that come before this House promoted by the Greater London Council.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), in his normal, efficient manner, presented the Bill by dealing briefly with the Clauses contained therein. I wish to follow somewhat the pattern that he has set.
I think it would be appropriate to start with Part II of the Bill which deals with sludge mains. The House will not be surprised to know that Erith and Crayford have a vested interest in the possibility of the provision of sludge mains, because I understand that we have the second largest sewerage works in Europe within our confines. Therefore, I can claim to understand some of the problems associated with the collection and disposal of sewage within the London area. I say, in passing, that it is unfortunate that sewerage works operated by the Greater London Council sometimes cause the most grave inconvience and nuisance to those citizens of London who happen to live nearby.

Clause 5 sets out the details for the provision and maintenance of sludge mains. It gives the council power to provide and maintain them, The hon. Member for Hornsey did not go into any great detail about what the Greater London Council had in mind concerning sludge mains.

What is meant by the term "sludge mains"? The hon. Gentleman touched on it very briefly. Yesterday I received a statement from the promoters of the Bill, and I was greatly interested to find on page 3:
A sludge main (which may be defined as a pipe or conduit used to convey the comparatively innocuous residues of treated sewage) …

That is not what the Bill says. Clause 4 states,
'sludge main' means a pipe or system of pipes (together with any apparatus and any pumping station, outfall or other works associated therewith) for the conveyance or disposal of the residue of sewage treated in any sewage disposal works vested in the Council …

I take that as meaning that when the G.L.C. comes to provide the sludge mains it will not be providing just an underground pipe or conduit; it could be undertaking extensive works and indulging in the extensive acquisition of land— works and acquisition not only in the area under its control as a county authority, but in the area of county authorities outside its control. If there are to be sludge mains carrying sludge from G.L.C. sewerage works for disposal in the sea, they must pass through the County of Kent or the County of Essex. There is no other way, unless they are taken North, and I cannot believe that.

Mr. Rossi: What the hon. Gentleman says is quite right. But I should like to draw his attention to Clause 6, which provides:
Where the Council propose to lay or construct a sludge main outside the sewerage area of the Council …
certain things have to be done. One of those things is that a notice has to be given to all interested parties. If they object, then there will be a public inquiry and the Minister will have to consider the matter and either accept or reject it, depending upon the merits of the case.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman. It is my intention in a few moments to turn to Clause 6 and say a few words about the procedures outlined for a public inquiry. Before doing so I wanted to explore a little more the difficulties and upheavals that Kent and Essex might expect if these powers are unwisely used by the Greater London Council.
The House may recall that there was an extensive public inquiry about the Thamesmead proposals. One of the matters discussed and explored at that inquiry was sewerage works and sewage disposal. It was established, respecting the Crossness southern outfall works, that it was necessary to maintain a reserve of land of 200 acres around the sewerage works so that, if there were difficulties in carrying out the operation of the sewerage works, the sludge could be


stored on that reserve land. I hope that the hon. Member for Hornsey, or one of his hon. Friends who may be speaking later in the debate, will be able to tell the House, before we give Second Reading to the Bill whether, in the works which will be carried out in providing sludge mains and any of the ancillary works—pumping stations etc. that go with them—it is their intention to have reserve land so that, if there is a breakdown in the sludge main, the sludge can be pumped on to that reserve land while the repairs and maintenance are undertaken.
If the G.L.C. is to impose upon the residents of Kent or Essex the same disabilities that it has imposed on my constituents at Erith and Crayford in respect of the nuisance and smells which emanate from the Crossness sewerage outfall when repairs and maintenance are in process during the summer months, those counties ought to be warned, and ought to have been warned so that their Members could have been here tonight to participate in this debate.
The hon. Member for Hornsey drew my attention to Clause 6. It is true that under this Clause here it will be necessary for a public notice to be displayed, and if necessary for the Minister to hold a public inquiry if he deems it necessary. As I understand it, under subsection (3), if the G.L.C. is able to do a deal with the other local authorities, there will be no right of objection by ordinary citizens, provided the sludge main runs along a highway maintained by the other local authority.
If my interpretation of the subsection is correct, it means that when, under the next Clause, the G.L.C. stops up streets temporarily for the purpose of laying, constructing, inspecting, repairing, renewing, or removing sludge mains, citizens of the other counties could be placed at a very serious disadvantage, because they would not have the right to invoke the public inquiry procedure, and the Minister would not be able to institute a public inquiry. The innocent residents would not even have known the route the sludge main was to take, let alone have a right to object to it.
They would suddenly be faced with their roads being stopped up for the use of traffic. They might even need to have scaffold boards from the street

across the pavement to their front doors. They would be faced with perhaps weeks, or even months, of inconvenience and distress. Their homes could be dislocated by the mud and mess which we have all come to associate with the laying of large pipes in built-up areas. Their carpets, their furniture, and the interior of their homes could be ruined. Shopkeepers who were unfortunate enough to have shops in a road which was stopped up could find their trade disrupted, and suffer considerable financial loss. Yet there is not one word in Part II of the Bill to show that the G.L.C. intends to pay compensation to people who may be affected when it comes to operate these powers.
We have all the fine words of the G.L.C. We have the fine words of the hon. Member for Hornsey, who I know speaks with sincerity on the subject of compensation. But when it comes to the injurious affection, perhaps even the blight, that will result from the operation of these powers, all the fine words of the G.L.C. fade away, and we are faced with the picture of the mighty G.L.C. not seeking power within that section to provide safeguards for the individual and for the loss he may suffer.
I recognise the need for sludge mains. If they are provided and connected to the outfall in my constituency, they will help considerably the people who I have the honour to represent in this House. By providing sludge mains, the G.L.C. may also help the people it is housing on the Thamesmead development. The G.L.C. intends to house human beings within a few hundred yards of the Crossness sewerage outfall works, and if these sludge mains are provided I can only hope, for the sake of these people who are to be condemned to live so close to the sewerage works, that this new development will take, not only some of the sludge, but also some of the odour which will otherwise invade their homes.
I hope that before Part II of the Bill is approved we shall be given the answer to two matters. First, where does the G.L.C. propose to run its sludge mains? I cannot believe that it has come to Parliament for powers without having prepared plans in considerable detail showing where these mains will be laid, and which treatment works within the council's control are to receive the benefits of these mains.
Secondly, the G.L.C. should give an undertaking to the House tonight that it accepts the moral responsibility to compensate innocent people who are faced with the havoc which these plans for sludge mains may cause.
If those two things can be done tonight, they will greatly assist the House in accepting the Bill in the spirit which I hope——

Mr. R. W. Brown: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that on the Thamesmead site, which the G.L.C. is to apportion, part to private developers and part for council development, it has chosen the part nearest the sewerage works for council development while allowing private people to develop on the other side?

Mr. Wellbeloved: To the best of my understanding, stage one which is now in the process of construction, and stage two, which will be started within the foreseeable future, are to be wholly council tenanted property.

Mr. Brown: Disgraceful.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is disgraceful that the houses within a few hundred yards of the sewerage works are to be council tenanted, while the more remote areas on the estate will no doubt be used for private development. Discussing that is not the purpose of my intervention, but if the theme is developed it will have my support.
I turn, now, to Part V of the Bill which deals with documents and equipment, and the microfilming of documents. I give a general welcome to this part of the Bill, but I note that under Clause 35(4) the G.L.C. does not shy away from introducing a matter which hinges on public policy. I noted the remarks of the hon. Member for Hornsey about the six years' Statute of Limitation. I hope that reliance will not be placed on the incapacity to introduce public matters in a private Bill when we come to deal with the wider question of compensation.
I give a warm welcome to this part of the Bill. By microfilming documents a tremendous amount of space will be saved in local town halls. Perhaps in most town halls, where local authorities have to conform to the Offices, Shops, and Railway Premises Act, they will be

able to get rid of some documents, and by making space available conform to the regulations.
I also give a very warm welcome to Clause 40, under which the G.L.C. will have power to improve its responsibility for flood protection. After the long time that the London Government Bill spent in this House, and the great care which the then Government claimed to have taken in framing it, it has now been realised that they omitted to give their new child, the G.L.C., adequate powers to deal with flood protection. The area which I represent is subject to considerable flooding from the Thames and I can assure the council that I support it in anything it does to provide maximum protection for the people of my constituency and London as a whole.
About 40 square miles of London is subject to flooding in certain circumstances. When Clause 40 is implemented, I wonder whether the council would reread the Bondi Report on Thames Flooding and join me in calling for an experiment in the evacuation of London's Underground. If, because of the inadequacy of flood protection, the river flooded into London, Bondi makes it clear that it would be a catastrophic disaster for the Underground. The G.L.C., as the responsible local authority, should speak out loud and clear about the requirements for protecting people in this respect.
Part III is quite involved, with about 20 Clauses, and introduces powers for the council or a borough to provide and maintain walkways. Diligently searching through the Council's Press hand-outs and in the Library in The Times cutting section, I was surprised that I could not find much evidence that the council had made any attempt to inform the public what it means by its concept of walkways. One may be forgiven for thinking, because of the number of Clauses in this Part of the Bill, that the council contemplates some vast network of elevated or subterranean paths linking different parts of the metropolis. The House is entitled to know what the council has in mind before granting these powers.

Clause 11 is an attempt to define walkways, but it gives no clue as to their practical application. With the massive publicity machine which the G.L.C. has


created, at immense expense to the ratepayers, it is strange that they have remained silent in explaining this major Part of the Bill. Is "walkways" the term to be applied to footbridges or paths linking shopping centre developments like that at the Elephant and Castle to surrounding residential areas? If so, I can understand it. There is a need for people separated by major traffic routes to use that magnificent centre.

Or will the real need for walkways arise as a result of the monster motorway box which will slice its way through the Greater London area? Are they to deal with the problems which will result from the cutting off of shoppers from their shops, grandmothers from their grandchildren, schoolchildren from their schools, which will be the result of this proposal? That seems to be the social consequence. Perhaps the supporters of the Bill will say why walkways are needed and how they relate to the motorway box.

Clause 12 deals with the procedure for publication notification of the Council's intention to declare a walkway and I welcome this, as well as the opportunities for public objection. It is just as important for the promoting Council, contemplating the construction of a walkway, to be obliged to spell out its intentions, as it is that it should explain this Bill. But I do not believe that the provision in Clause 12(4)(e) is necessarily the best method.

The powers under Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, are invoked, which make it possible for an innocent objector to receive a demand to meet part or all of the cost of an inquiry and the inspector's expenses purely because, as a citizen of London, he had the temerity to oppose a proposal of the G.L.C. This is quite wrong and I hope that the Council will find some other way to provide for a public inquiry. If the law will permit only inquiries under Section 290, I hope that we can be told that the Council will guarantee the cost of any such inquiry.

Clause 15 gives me considerable concern and I wish that the hon. Member for Hornsey had spent some time on this important provision. The G.L.C. is asking

for power to provide walkways, yet in this Clause it is trying to insert qualification of its liability in case of accident to a user. The Council will construct a walkway and invite people to use it, but then try to limit its own liability. Clause 15(4)(a) says:
In an action against a borough council in respect of damage resulting from their failure to maintain the surface of a walkway, it shall be a defence (without prejudice to any other defence for the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that the borough council had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the walkway to which the action relates was not dangerous to persons on foot.

Subsection (4)(b) says:
For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters …

The G.L.C. then sets out in detail a number of defences, which it is trying to make legal in the Bill, against the failure of the council or one of the London boroughs to keep a walkway in adequate condition. These defences refer to
… the character of the walkway, and the persons who were reasonably to be expected to use it".

What does that mean? It goes on to refer to
… the standard of maintenance appropriate for a walkway of that character and used by such persons".

What does that mean?

It then refers to
… the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the walkway".
What the devil does the Council mean by that? As a citizen of London, I join with other citizens in demanding that the standard of maintenance and repair of walkways provided by the G.L.C. should be of the highest calibre. I will not delay the House by quoting the other defences mentioned in the subsection.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent court action involving a constituent of mine who fell over due to a 1½ inch gap in the pavement? Because of a High Court decision in a similar case my constituent, an elderly person, was not able to claim against the Council.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is shameful, and when the Bill is in Committee these


qualifying provisions will have to be removed.
It is surprising that on the day when we are discussing a Measure in which the G.L.C. is attempting to qualify its responsibilities to the citizens of London, I should read in tonight's Evening Standard a report about Mr. Leslie Freeman, chairman elect of the G.L.C., having been awarded damages amounting to £1,981 in the High Court for injuries received as a result of falling over a two-foot ledge during the hours of darkness after attending a housewarming party. The report states that Mr. Freeman was proceeding
… along a path when it was very dark after the party at a block of flats and fell over a two-foot drop in the grounds.
The report says that Mr. Justice James
… considered that the defendants should have anticipated that a visitor to the premises might well have used this way in and out from the premises and should have provided in their duty of taking reasonable precautions a warning or a light to avoid a risk of a visitor walking off the edge and falling down on to the concrete paving.
How fortunate that Mr. Freeman was not walking along one of the G.L.C.'s walkways because, under the provisions of this Measure, the Council would no doubt have found a defence had he sustained that sort of injury. These provisions must be limited, and I give notice of my intention that, if these powers remain in the Bill on Third Reading, I shall urge with all the strength I can command that the Bill be rejected.

In Clause 21 the G.L.C. graciously says in subsections (7) and (8) that, if there is a dispute in regard to the compensation terms of the Bill, the matter may be referred to the Lands Tribunal. However, no provision is made for the legal cost of such an appeal to be met. The council should make it clear that if a dispute should arise it will meet the costs involved and not place unnecessary expense on a possible innocent party.

Mr. Rossi: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is really a matter for legal aid? It would be hard for the G.L.C. to say, "You can ask us for whatever you like, however unreasonable, and you can then take us to the Lands Tribunal if we do not agree to your figures, and then we must pay your costs". The G.L.C. could be open to blackmail because it would have to add

the prospective costs of a Lands Tribunal case to the compensation. Surely it is far better to allow the citizen to have legal aid so that he is not deprived, by reason of the smallness of his pocket, from having justice done. Indeed, in leasehold reform and other related matters the Minister might consider the provision of legal aid.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The G.L.C. cannot hide behind excuses. If in my private life the State does not provide all the facilities which I consider my family requires, I must provide what is missing. If the State does not provide the G.L.C. with all the powers that it would like to use in respect of just compensation, it should provide them outside the State apparatus. The G.L.C. should not bring forward a Bill of this kind and lay down provisions enabling appeals to be made if it goes on to say, "But if you exercise these rights, Mr. Citizen, you will have to pay".
The G.L.C. is asking to provide walkways. I cannot recall a poll being conducted in London as there was in Luton in respect of the previous matter which was before the House. The G.L.C. cannot hide behind excuses and suggest that something like this is a national or Government responsibility.
While Clause 22 deals with compulsory purchase, I suggest that if the G.L.C. wants powers to acquire property compulsorily it should at the same time seek powers to give humane, adequate and fair compensation. What will be the plight of householders and traders who are dispossessed of their property by the council exercising these powers?
What will happen to the man in his 50's who thought that he had bought a home in which to spend the rest of his life when he finds that it is being taken from him? He may have paid out all his hard-earned money, laid out the garden, decorated the house and installed modern, perhaps luxurious, but necessary equipment. Because of the G.L.C.'s desire to establish walkways through London, such a citizen may have his dream home compulsorily taken from him.
The G.L.C. should not merely say that he will be compensated at the market value plus a small amount as a disturbance allowance. He is entitled to equivalent reinstatement by the authority


which is dispossessing him of his property. He is unlikely to find a similar property for the compensation he will get. He will be faced with a great deal of worry and upset and will probably find himself hundreds, if not thousands, of £s out of pocket—this as a result of powers which the G.L.C., not the Government, is asking hon. Members to give it.
Think of the plight of the occupier of a house in a quiet street who suddenly finds that the G.L.C. or one of the London boroughs—perhaps the borough of Bexley, in which I reside—wishes to provide a walkway which may run level with his bedroom windows. The amenities of that quiet street will be destroyed. Its peace will be shattered and there will be little privacy.
This compulsory purchase action may be taken to provide a walkway so that people have easier access to a railway station, perhaps to commute to and from Central London, or for children to go to and from school. The Bill does not make provision for the householders in that quiet street to be compensated for the noise, disruption and dislocation of amenities. The G.L.C. is making no provision for the payment of compensation for injurious affection arising out of policies initiated by itself or one of the London boroughs.
In a statement circulated to hon. Members who represent London constituencies, the G.L.C. listed all the items for which it considered that improvements in the compensation code were needed.
I will not quote this list, but it is not good enough for the G.L.C. to circulate this document in Parliament, paying lip service to the urgent need for reform, yet, when there is an opportunity for it to do something it attempts to hide behind the excuse that it has raised this matter with the Government and received no satisfaction. The present unsatisfactory state of the compensation laws flows primarily from the policy of previous governments. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends for the excellent steps, albeit faltering, that they have already made in the four short years of this Government's life, in dealing with the reform of the compensation code.
We have done more to reform the compensation code than was done by previous

governments over 13 years. When I read such a statement as was circulated by the G.L.C. I feel that it is an audacity for it to present that sort of argument to Parliament in such circumstances. This is a G.L.C. Bill, and it could have asked in the Bill for powers to deal with inadequacies of the compensation code, about which it complains.
It is not sufficient for the hon. Member for Hornsey to say that if the G.L.C. had brought forward such provisions in the Bill the House may have rejected them on the Government's advice. The hon. Gentleman does not know whether that is right, because it has not been put to the test. I invite him and the G.L.C. to put it to the test by presenting such a Bill. In 1966 Liverpool presented a Bill containing measures which, if operated properly, can deal with many of the worst abuses in the compensation code. If the G.L.C. is serious in its desire for justice let it bring forward similar proposals.
I had the pleasure of listening this week to a leading local authority valuer, who presented a paper at a meeting attended by myself and the hon. Member for Hornsey. We are both interested in this subject. On page 3 of the Paper, the valuer said:
… some alleviation of hardship could be achieved at … additional public expenditure on a comparatively modest scale.
That man is a very respected member of his profession, and closely associated with the Council promoting this Bill. If he evaluates the cost involved in dealing with these anomalies and injustices in the compensation code as being "comparatively modest", there is really no excuse for the G.L.C., on that sort of advice, not coming to the House and asking for the powers it requires.

Mr. Rossi: Would the hon. Gentleman now refer to page 4 of the same document and read the first two sentences of the second paragraph?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman is praying in aid a paragraph which says:
The Greater London Council, after a very full discussion, unanimously decided to make strong representations to the Government on these and other specific points …".
It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his friends relying on that sort of excuse. The Government are not presenting the


Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill to the House; they are not defendants in the dock. It is the G.L.C. which has to justify these provisions, to the House and people of London, and give reasons why it has failed to ask this House for powers to deal with these injustices in the compensation code.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that the G.L.C. is full of these excuses? There was a time when those who are now in control at County Hall thought they could have the world for free. Now, they are blaming the Government for everything they can, including the fact that, by their own ineptness, they have had to put an extra 7d. on the rates.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am tempted to agree with my hon. Friend with enthusiasm, but I want to minimise the amount of party differences. I want to persuade the G.L.C. to face up to its responsibilities and to do justice. At the moment the House could be forgiven if it came to the conclusion that the G.L.C. is making no serious attempt to remedy the injustices that these powers will cause. It is quite indefensible to make a statement that better facilities, whether new roads, hospitals, schools, housing estates or even the provision of walkways, are necessary, without being prepared to pay the costs of the social consequences flowing from such action.
If the community wants a better way of life, if the people of London want walkways, they cannot have them, and the House must say this clearly, if those advances are based on the hardship and suffering of individuals dispossessed of their homes and robbed of their peace of mind. The social costs must be paid by the community, and there must be proper compensation. The G.L.C. must face up to its responsibilities. Let it ask for powers, even if they are similar to those taken by Liverpool, in 1966. Why has the Council not done that? Why has it run away from its responsibilities?
There are traders who will suffer as a result of powers in the Bill. Has the Council considered giving those traders an opportunity of taking a shop at Thamesmead, in my constituency? I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is highly unlikely, because the G.L.C. said, at the public inquiry a few months ago, that it is determined to extract the

highest possible rack rent from those properties it maintains. This is another example of the G.L.C. having within its power the means of administering justice to people suffering under the compensation code, and yet failing to exercise this power.
It could offer dispossessed traders very good conditions in terms of rent, and in other ways, through shops owned by the Council, but it will not do so. It is wrong that it will not do so, but should seek to put the responsibility for the suffering and the hardship on other people. The G.L.C. should take its courage in its hands and come to this House asking for powers. If it does not like the Liverpool-type powers, let it ask for discretionary powers, open to the authority to use in the light of circumstances, so that the responsibility for ensuring fair and humane compensation will rest squarely on the Council which initiates the policies resulting in that hardship. I have an idea that there would be a reasonable chance of it getting such powers.
This is provided that they were not hedged in with other undesirable features. In such a case the House might accede to the Bill. Until it has tried this we do not know. My purpose in forcing a Second Reading debate is threefold. First it is to probe the Bill, because it is in the public interest that Private Bills promoted by local authorities should be probed in this House, particularly when a local authority fails to give adequate publicity to its proposals outside Parliament. Secondly, it was to highlight the failure of the G.L.C. to take this opportunity of asking for powers to deal with the inadequate compensation code.
Thirdly, it was to invite the G.L.C. to face up to its responsibilities. Without doubt, it is the greatest local government unit in the world. It should step into the lead in the provision of proper compensation for the victims of its own policies. The resources of the Council are colossal. It should not seek to perpetuate the shameful results of unfair and inadequate compensation. It should not be seeking excuses, it should be seeking powers to end these abuses.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I wish to speak on a slightly different if complementary point from that of the


hon. Gentleman the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), but I should like to follow him by saying that I believe he is absolutely right about the desirability of bringing these Private Bills to debate in the House. I think that on both sides of the House we are united in feeling that if these Bills are brought to Second Reading we are given an opportunity for a searching examination which in many respects is often necessary.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) for having moved the Second Reading so expeditiously and for having kindly referred to the reasoned Amendment which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have not selected, having observed that it is a perennial.
Frankly, it is not quite perennial, not every year. I put down this reasoned Amendment to this or other appropriate Bills only when I have some new example to offer the House in support of the general theme which is explained in it. I would also say to my hon. Friend that I am grateful to him and to others, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, South West (Mr. Hawkins), who have joined with me and put their names to the same reasoned Amendment in the past.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the point which I wished to examine in following the general line of the reasoned Amendment which I tabled has nothing at all to do with individuals. This is not a matter of personalities or the personal fortune or reputation of private individuals in their professional capacity, so far as valuers are concerned.
I am their friend. I am expecting almost hourly to be invited to become a vice-president of the Local Authority Valuers' Association, and I am honoured to be a guest at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' Centenary dinner on 4th March, when I expect to be toasted. There will be not only the pleasure of the meal, but the agreeable ambience of friends and people I have supported.
But I differ from my hon. Friend, for I do not believe that it is only the law of compensation that needs reform, badly though that does need reform. Honestly, I thought the hon. Member for

Erith and Crayford was very unfair to try to put on the G.L.C. the onus of producing legislation, which is bound to be highly complex and of which, as we know perfectly well, the Government would have said, "This may be all right in theory, but we are trying to draft something better to meet the case"—as the hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, knows perfectly well. No local authority could possibly attempt to formulate amending legislation on compulsory purchase compensation. If they did so it would have to be by a Public Bill, not a Private Bill, because a Private Bill is by definition confined to a limited number of people in the Kingdom; and any reform of such law must, of course, be general and public.
But it is not only the unsatisfactory state of the law with which we should be concerned. It is the system of compensation used by the council, and it would be the same system under any provisions for compensation. It is not because I think that the system works so very unfairly, least of all because of any lack of confidence in the professional men who have to work the system. It is because the system, rightly or wrongly, is mistrusted by the public that I am concerned that it should not continue.
The Bill envisages, specifically in Clause 10, the compulsory acquisition of land by the council and it therefore properly raises for the House the question of public confidence in the fairness of the system whereby the amount of compensation for the victim is assessed. There are, broadly, two systems of assessment or valuation of private property compulsorily acquired by local authorities. One puts the duty of valuation upon the district valuer, who is employed by the Board of Inland Revenue and is, therefore, independent of both the Treasury and the local authority. The other system puts the duty of valuation upon the employees of the local authority which has got to pay the compensation and which is acquiring the property compulsorily.
The Greater London Council, the promoter of the Bill, uses the latter method, as did its predecessor at County Hall, the London County Council. That method was described by the Chief Whip of the


majority party on the London County Council—the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet)—in these terms:
There is a large staff of valuers who acquire land for the use of the council, who negotiate to get the best terms. It is very necessary to have experience in London in dealing with large firms whose terms may be very difficult to arrange in the Council's interests.''
I ask the House to note especially the phrases—
negotiate to get the best terms"—
and—
in the Council's interests.
At that point, I intervened and said:
Would the hon. Lady confirm that she is saying that it is one of the advantages of the administration of the L.C.C. that the valuers do get the very best terms?
The hon. Lady replied very frankly:
Yes. I would say that in the interests of the people the valuers should get the best terms they can, and that it is a good thing for the ratepayers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 283.]
It appears—I will not say "from the horse's mouth", because that would be an inelegant way to describe the hon. Lady— but from one who spoke then advisedly, and from years of experience of the London County Council, that that is the philosophy. Owners of private property, therefore, unfortunately have been given the idea that valuers employed by the acquiring authority are somehow less inclined to be generous—fair, even—to them than the district valuer employed by the independent Inland Revenue. They have got the idea somehow that the local authority is judge in its own cause, and they see that local authority's employees as hired assassins.
I do not myself think that the public mistrust is justified. It is bitterly resented, incidentally, by the valuers themselves. They are professional men of, as we all know, the highest integrity and honour. But when one tries to persuade the disgruntled victim or constituent who has suffered from compulsory purchase of all that, he will say, in Emerson's phrase:
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons
It is intolerably unfair that these individuals should be placed in such an invidious position. It is very difficult for anyone to defend the system, and equally difficult for anyone to defend the honourable professional men who have to

administer it, in public. If anyone mentions public distrust of the system operated by the Greater London Council, all the thanks he or she will get will be a writ for libel by the entire valuation department staff for daring to suggest that there could possibly be any mistrust of the system operated by them.
But these distressing ambivalences do not touch the heart of the matter. They are embarrasing irrelevancies. The heart of the matter is that it is a bad thing for the House to support tacitly, through the Bill, a system of administration which does not command public confidence—and this system does not.
When I wrote a letter the other day to The Times—the rich man's Black Dwarf —describing the system, the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors wrote in great indignation to say that no such system existed. Local authorities nowhere, never, employed their own staff to value for compensation property compulsorily acquired. Oh no! The curious thing was that a few days later he wrote another letter saying that actually they did do this thing, and it was a very good system too. I do not know whether they have a small room in the Local Authority Valuers' Association where they take Presidents of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors who write letters to The Times like that.
I did not see the original of the second letter, but the signature underneath it must have looked uncommonly like Guy Fawkes' on his confession, because it was clear to me that in all honesty, ignorance and innocence, the President of the Royal Institution wrote that first letter and was then clobbered by the Local Authority Valuers' Association and asked to write another one in precisely contradictory terms.
That is my argument, and I have illustrated its validity again and again in the House by specific examples of what happens in practice.
I must now detain the House further while I give one further example of how compulsory purchase can be made to work against the interests of the private property owner by over-zealous use of administrative expertise. The case that I want to describe concerns the compulsory purchase of the Kingsway subway by the predecessor body to the Greater


London Council, which used the same system. It concerns the amount of compensation to be paid to the leaseholder of the Kingsway subway, who used it to display machinery for export, for prematurely terminating his lease on compulsorily acquiring it.
I say "lease". Technically, it was a licence, but for all practical purposes it was a lease. The lessor was the British Transport Commission, and the lessee was Mr S. G. Young. The amount of compensation naturally depended on the amount of time the lease had to run. It had nine years to run when the London County Council decided to acquire the subway to construct the Strand underpass. Under one clause in the lease it could be terminated in six months under certain conditions, one of which was if the subway should be required for traffic purposes. Therefore, it was highly convenient for the London County Council that that condition should be fulfilled, because it would have to pay only a fraction of the compensation due to the lessee if the lease had so much less than its full term to run.
Whether or not the subway was required for traffic purposes, and the lease could therefore be prematurely terminated, depended on the say-so of a body called the Traffic Advisory Committee and the Ministry of Transport. If the London County Council could manage to persuade those authorities to give that say-so, it would be saved, and the private owner would in effect be robbed of, the sum of about £25,000.
But the London County Council was a little squeamish about asking for the say-so for the reason that it wanted to save the money. It preferred to ask for it on the ground that it was in a hurry, that it wanted to get the Strand underpass constructed quickly.
I shall now quote to the House the words of Lord Justice Russell in the judgment in the case of Young v. The London County Council, when it finally came to the Court of Appeal on 13th July, 1967. I shall read from page 13 of the revised official transcript. It would be an impertinence to do anything other than to quote fully. If I may impose on the patience of the House, the quotation runs to about 400 words, this is Lord

Justice Russell's considered statement. He said:
One feature of this case I do not find altogether satisfactory. It was clearly represented to the Advisory Committee by the Ministry document No. C. 367 on the 30th September 1960 that, unless the Committee made the recommendation, the underpass project would be held up. That document says:
'The subway is the property of the British Transport Commission and is at present on long lease to Mr. S. G. Young for the storage, display and sale of machinery and non-inflammable goods and equipment, but included in the terms of the lease is a condition that the lease can be terminated at six months' notice in certain circumstances. One of the circumstances envisaged is the subway being required for traffic purposes on the recommendation of the Traffic Advisory Committee. The conversion of the subway for use as an underpass is scheduled to start during the current year 1960/61, and the London County Council desire accordingly'"—
and the word "accordingly" is underlined in the transcript—
'that Mr. Young should be given six months' notice of the termination of his lease. The Council therefore asked for a formal recommendation from the Traffic Advisory Committee that the subway is required for traffic purposes as soon as possible. The Minister would be glad if the Committee would now consider such a recommendation.'
Lord Justice Russell continued:
It is also quite plain that the Advisory Committee so understood the document; that their recommendation was the one way in which an obstacle in the carrying out of the project could be removed, because Minute No. 2202, based on document No. C. 367, and headed: 'London County Council. Kingsway Subway. Strand Underpass', is as follows:
Lord Justice Russell then quoted the Minute, which said:
'Mr. Edwards'"—
the representative of the L.C.C. on the Committee—
'stressed the need for the subway to be available as soon as possible to enable work to start on its conversion for use as an underpass. It was agreed that the subway was required for traffic purposes as previously recommended, the precise form of words for any report to be left to the secretary to determine after obtaining legal advice.'
Lord Justice Russell went on:
In truth, of course, this was not the need for the recommendation because a compulsory purchase order was in the mind of the London County Council which would override any tenancy, and the sole object of the exercise (not told to the Advisory Committee) was to affect


the incidence of compensation as between Mr. Young and the British Transport Commission; at least, no other object could be suggested by …
counsel for the London County Council. Those are the words of Lord Justice Russell and the House should also be given the words of Lord Justice Willmer in the same judgment, which will be found on page 4 of the transcript. He said that there was
… some ground for suspicion that the London County Council were taking sides with the British Transport Commission so as to keep the compensation payable to the appellant as low as possible.
To indicate even more precisely the view of Lord Justice Russell, I quote from the transcript of the proceedings of the previous day, on page 6. He said:
The elbows of this Advisory Committee were jogged by the Ministry of Transport, the L.C.C., … Uncle Tom Cobley and all to make quit; sure that the private citizen got the minimum of compensation.
This is not an innocent, uninformed paranoid member of the public. These are two Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal. In these circumstances, who can blame the public if they see this as an example of legalistically legalised thieving by an official conspiracy? This happened under the system acquiesced in in the Bill and administered by the L.C.C.'s successor authority. If things like this can happen and invite such condemnation from such a source, how can we blame innocent people who suspect that there may be something wrong with a system which prima facie does seem to make a man judge in his own cause?
In the circumstances, if the House permits without protest the passing of the Bill, our constituents can have no confidence in us and we should be ashamed of ourselves. But I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey says about the compensation and I gladly accept and pay tribute to the fact that the G.L.C. has taken the initiative and been instrumental in forcefully presenting to the Department proposals, comments and criticisms designed to promote and facilitate a change in the law of compensation.
There has been a change of heart no doubt. One might wonder whether this is because; of a change in the political leadership of the G.L.C. or whether it has been caused by my friendly encouragement and guidance in this House, of which, no doubt, note has been taken,

although no newspaper ever dares to publish a word of it. [Laughter.] None the less, it is so. The newspapers tried once and they were warned by counsel that they had better not try to defend a writ for libel because juries were not friendly to newspapers and that it would be better to settle, although theirs was a classic case of fair comment in a matter of public interest.
The Press does not like to touch this topic. That is regrettable, because I am criticising the system and I am deploring the lack of public confidence in the system and I am saying that that lack of confidence may be understood. What I am not saying—I would not say it, and I truly do not believe it—is that individuals do not do their duty according to their lights in a spirit of honour. None the less, even if the law is improved as to the terms and basis of compensation, it will still be ill-served by this system.
I hope, therefore, that the House may soon address itself to the G.L.C.'s recommendations as to the reform of legislation, but that it will not, in doing so, neglect to address itself also to the need for a change in the system whereby any law is administered.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: In my view, that last speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) was an abuse of the privileges of the House. I have told the hon. Member that I proposed to speak in this way. I also said to him that I would judge my speech by his and that I would not reveal what I believe to be the whole of the past sorry history of the hon. Member's activities on this issue if he refrained from repeating yet again before the House, covered by its rules of absolute privilege, words or quotations from a document which has been agreed in open court to be a libellous one. But the hon. Member has done so, and so I propose to use all the information at my disposal in this speech.
I am sorry to take up the time of the House. Frankly, I doubt whether the hon. Member is worth it, but I am caused to do so by the fact that a very large number of honest and competent men are injured in this way—"perennially", as the hon. Member himself said—by the hon. Member's activities on the Floor of


the House. It seems to me that those men, all of them basically honest and competent professional people, have a right to be defended here as well as attacked.
It is because of my contacts—not of any financial nature—with the Rating and Valuation Association that I am making this speech tonight. But, in addition to that organisation, on behalf of one of its members who is a senior member of the valuation department of the Greater London Council, I have been approached by officers, acting in their official capacity, of the Greater London Council and the representative of the London boroughs on the same issue, as well as by a member of the Greater London Council.
One might think that the true cause of the hon. Member for Ilford, North's speeches—they are not singular, but plural—was the fact that his wife was a defendant in a libel action which arose from an article written by her and published in December, 1961, in the Evening Standard. That article concerned the work of officers in the valuation department of what was then the L.C.C. and reflected upon their competence and integrity. I do not wish, naturally, to repeat its contents any more than has already been done, but it made imputations that they were partial in their negotiations with vendors not only as employees but also in breach of their professional code of conduct.
Mrs. Iremonger and the Evening Standard subsequently withdrew unreservedly in open court—not behind the scenes, not privately—the defamatory references to these officers and agreed to pay a substantial sum in respect of damage. The sum, by the way, was paid to charity and not to the persons who regarded themselves as having been libelled. I accept that the hon. Member has no financial motive in this connection. As I understand, those damages were paid by the Evening Standard and in no way relate to him personally.
I entirely accept that the hon. Member's motives can be said to be of the best. He is, as he said in a previous speech in this House on this subject, treating his wife's honour as his own. I appreciate that his motive is of that

character; nevertheless, he has carried this too far.
The hon. Member has referred to this on eight occasions in the House. On 31st July, 1963 he brought in a Bill to amend the Defamation Act under which the action had been brought by the 134 valuers of the London County Council. On 19th March, 1964 he used the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, on which hon. Members are allowed to raise such matters as they wish, to quote from the Evening Standard article that I have mentioned. He quoted, for example, exactly the Emerson quotation——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member is pursuing the hon. Member rather than the Second Reading of the Bill. He must devote himself to the subject of the Amendment put down by the hon. Member, which would be in order.

Mr. R. W. Brown: On a point of order. I have been sitting here restrained listening to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) making an appalling attack. He tried to argue that it was not an attack, but anybody who has been listening to it must have come to the view that it was a personal vendetta against the valuers of the G.L.C. I put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend is attempting only to put into perspective the attack which the hon. Gentleman opposite has made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make clear what he believes to be the hon. Member's motives, but I think that he has gone far enough in that direction.

Mr. English: I was about to say that in that debate in 1964, the phrase "hired assassin" was used, as the hon. Gentleman again used it tonight, and this was another quotation from the article. That was not the only quotation from that article that was used by the hon. Member in his speech.

Mr. Iremonger: It was verbatim.

Mr. English: I accept that. I am not accusing the hon. Member of misquotation of his wife's article. I am saying that he is using the cloak of privilege to repeat several times a libel, and I will not press the point.
I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I could prove to the satisfaction of the House that this type of thing has been done on eight previous occasions by the hon. Member before the House. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the greatest respect, you think that I am going too far, I think that eight times by the hon. Member is going too far in repeating something which has already been settled in open court.
On many of these occasions the hon. Member has adopted the same tactics as he did tonight, raising cases where he believes that the L.C.C., as it was, or the G.L.C. as it is now, is adopting improper practices. I must refer to this, because it may not be possible to answer immediately the case raised, although afterwards it is easy to find out if any of the references were wrong.
On four of the eight occasions which I have mentioned, the hon. Member referred to 22 L.C.C. cases which had been referred to the Lands Tribunal between 1951 and 1960. He claimed, among other things, that only four of these cases had been decided in favour of the L.C.C. and that there was a wide disparity between the L.C.C.'s final offers and the Tribunal's awards. In fact, seven cases went in favour of the L.C.C., not four, and the disparity between the final offers and the awards was not so great as the hon. Gentleman stated. Furthermore, the hon. Member did not quote the very much greater disparity between the vendors' claims and the Tribunal's awards.
As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must keep to the subject of the Bill. To take the argument raised in the hon. Member's Amendment, leaving aside his motive and what I believe to be the innuendos contained in his speech, a valuer's duty is to assess the compensation payable under the law.
This is not the place or the time to argue the virtues of the Land Compensation Act 1961, or its defects. The G.L.C. could have inserted provisions amending it in this Bill, if it wished to do so. It is certainly true that the G.L.C. has put forward proposals for ameliarating what it considers to be undesirable features of the compensation law. Some of the very people who have advised on those proposals and made such suggestions are those whom the hon. Member for Ilford, North has attacked. The

valuers of the G.L.C. are its advisers upon this issue, and they are amongst those who have put proposals to the G.L.C. relating to these matters.
The whole argument of the hon. Gentleman puts the matter completely on its head. The G.L.C. in this respect is not alone. About 100 local authorities, many of them the largest in the country, adopt the same practice as the G.L.C. on this issue. They employ their own valuation staff to conduct negotiations for the acquisition of property This is an entirely proper practice. Nobody suggests that when a person sells a piece of land to a local authority the local authority should not use its own solicitor to draft the conveyance. We expect a vendor to use his own solicitor to see that his legal rights are safeguarded, as is normal with all conveyances.
In the same way, we expect that property owners may use valuers under their control to negotiate with the valuers of the local authority.

Sir Ronald Russell: Who is to be the final arbiter?

Mr. English: I am coming to that point. I understand that the council goes beyond its legal duties, because it advises owners, before negotiations are commenced, to take professional advice of their own.
Let us consider the alternative suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Ilford, North. I have served on a local authority where the district valuer, who is an employee of the Board of Inland Revenue, does the valuation and negotiates with the vendor.
A district valuer's duty is to vet negotiations of this character wherever a local authority is expending moneys which are grant aided. One of his prime functions is to see that the local authority does not use a Government grant to purchase land from private citizens corruptly or something of that character. But because he is there and because he is a Government official, he is instructed, as I understand all district valuers are instructed, to see that the price is fair to all parties and is in accordance with the law.
If the hon. Member for Ilford, North, had his way, the person negotiating and the person considering whether the negotiation was fair would be the district


valuer. This applies in some cases, and this would be the situation according to the hon. Member's proposal. To use the hon. Member's words, that is far more putting a man as a judge in his own cause than the alternative system adopted by the G.L.C.
For that reason, when I was a member of a local authority. I advocated the system used by the G.L.C. whereby there are two independent parties—the local authority with its valuers and the independent private party with such professional advice as he may have—negotiating with each other and arriving at a decision which, in all normal cases, because nearly all services are grant aided, will subsequently be looked at by a district valuer employed by the Government who has not himself conducted the negotiation or agreed the issue in the first place.
It seems to me that this is an incomparably fairer system than the procedure advocated by the hon. Member for Ilford, North. I accept that the alternative procedure exists. I accept, too, that the district valuer operating that system does it very well and fairly. After all, he is instructed by my right hon. Friends and others to operate in accordance with the legal requirements.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Whether one proceeds by way of the district valuer, or by the other method suggested, they both have to operate according to statute law, and remedies are available for both if they do not do so.

Mr. English: That is true, too, of the alternative system.
It is most unfair of the hon. Member for Ilford, North to say that a valuer of the G.L.C. is, in effect, acting as a judge in his own cause, merely because he is an employee of that local authority. He acts as an employee of that local authority under the law, under its instructions as my hon. Friend says, and negotiates quite fairly in accordance with certain specific instructions given by the council. One of those instructions is that valuers are to reach agreement with the owners on a basis that is fair to both parties, and then, under the system, it will in all normal cases when it is a

grant-aided service be vetted by the district valuer.

Mr. Iremonger: May I make it clear that what I am saying is not that it is so? I do not think that it is. What I am saying is that with the best will in the world the innocent public think that it is so, and that justice, though it may be done, is not seen to be done. That is my case. I might add——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman referred to me and made comments about my having raised this matter before. I shall raise it again, and again, and again.

Mr. English: I still think that such repetition is an abuse of the privileges of the House. I accept that the hon. Member has motives of domestic bliss or domestic honour, as he sees it, which are not to be compared with other types of motive, but I still think that it is an abuse of the House to repeat, time and again, on nine occasions now—there were eight before his last speech—the contents of a libellous article.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that this was a wide debate. The hon. Member must speak about the Bill.

Mr. English: I was doing so, but I allowed myself to stray once more, because of the intervention.
The hon. Member is using one local authority, and using the valuers of that authority because they happen to be employees of the corporation, to illustrate and bolster his case. His case is to say that instead of having a system where there are two parties, and someone employed by the Government vets the system afterwards—rather akin to the way in which one has two lawyers in court arguing with one another and the judge then decides the argument—one of the lawyers should also be the judge, although that is what he is complaining of in the present system.
It seems to me that this is wrong. It seems to me that the G.L.C.'s system is a better one. Above all, I think that its valuers, who are honest and competent men, have a right to be defended from these perpetual attacks made on them.

9.19 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on the clear and concise way in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I intend to comment on parts of this Measure, but perhaps I might first say a few words about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), and that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
I feel that the public thinks that there is something in the argument put forward by my hon. Friend, that justice is not seen to be done, and therefore it may be that the regulations need changing. It may be that more publicity should be given to the way these things are done. But it should be put right.

Mr. English: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind Dr. Goebbels' statement that one can make people believe anything if one repeats it often enough.

Sir R. Russell: That does not apply here.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, in a genial way, castigated the G.L.C. for not seeking improvements in compensation. The G.L.C. started life under the control of the hon. Gentleman's party and it remained under its control for three years. For two-and-a-half of those three years his party was also in control of the Government at Westminster. Therefore, I wonder what steps the Labour-controlled G.L.C. took to put the matter right.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted to inform the hon. Gentleman that it originally made precisely the same representations as the present masters of the G.L.C., but they have no more excuse for asking for these powers.

Sir R. Russell: Perhaps they do not want to waste the time of the House if they know that the Government in power will not do it. I do not wish to pursue that point any further.
I will not quarrel with anything that has been said on walkways. That is a neat name. I confess that I had not heard of it until I read it in the Bill. They are usually called pedestrian precincts. I am not so worried about

their effect if they are above or under ground. I am more worried if they are on the surface. I hope that when walkways are constructed, as presumably they will be or provision for them would not be in the Bill, adequate alternative routes for road traffic will be provided. A serious problem will arise if the creation of walkways increases traffic congestion.
There have been reports that Bond Street as we know it, which I take it means New Bond Street at one end and Old Bond Street at the other, is to be made a pedestrian precinct, possibly at certain times of the day. I am not sure whether this is the responsibility of the G.L.C. or of the Westminster City Council, but I hope that if it comes about steps will be taken to ensure that there are alternative routes for the south-bound traffic which will be displaced from Bond Street and that, in making this walkway or pedestrian precinct, we do not overlook the road traffic side.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. An example of a walkway is to be seen in the Barbican scheme in the City of London, adjacent to my constituency. It is an excellent example of developments which may take place in other parts.

Sir R. Russell: I know that example. I also know of a very successful pedestrian precinct in the City of Norwich which is of benefit to motorists and pedestrians.
A few years ago there was created in my constituency what is called Central Square, Wembley, for walkers only. The only difficuty was that it was built on what was nothing but air before, or perhaps I should say air plus steam from steam engines and diesel fumes from diesel engines. It is over Wembley Central station on the main line out of Euston. It is not yet very well known and no traffic goes through it. When local authorities create areas of that kind, they should take care to ensure that they are made known, because the shopkeepers in this area have to engage in publicity exhibitions like baby shows to attract people to the square. It is not a very good example of a walkway.

Clause 29(i)(e) on finance makes provision for a contribution towards the conveyance of refuse from the area of the local authority to the place where it


deposits it. How many of the London boroughs dump their refuse without having it processed first? The former Borough of Wembley processed its refuse and I know that the Wembley section of the present borough of Brent does the same. I am not sure whether the Willesden section follows suit.

A great deal of material, notably paper, rags and metals—can be obtained from household and trade refuse in this way. These products should not be wasted. I know of at least one borough which used to dump its refuse in a sandpit or quarry without making any attempt to process it. I hope that the Ministry will, if it has power to do so, insist on all local authorities processing their refuse and rescuing these valuable materials.

I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that the provisions dealing with documents are sensible. I hope that much space which is now taken up by the storage of documents will be saved as a result of this matter being disposed of and microfilmed in the way provided in the Bill.

Clause 36 makes provision for the hiring of electronic and other equipment. Members of the public who wish to use this equipment when it is not being used by local authorities should be able to hire it. This provision will not only bring in revenue but will provide a valuable service to the public.

Clause 38 extends the time for the acquisition of land for the Northern approach to Waterloo Bridge, the southern approach to Wandsworth Bridge and for the Eastern Avenue extension. These developments are obviously needed and the longer they are not provided the greater will be the need. When will the land be acquired and the roadways and approach roads completed? These developments will help to relieve traffic congestion in London.

As Clause 45 deal with costs, can we be told what these extra powers will cost the G.L.C. each year and what additional burden will be placed on London ratepayers? This burden is growing annually and I trust that all means will be used to reduce it.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: A number of persuasive speeches have been made in this debate. Mine will not be long, but I hope that it will nevertheless be persuasive.
The G.L.C. is at present not properly using the powers which the Bill seeks to extend. When we are called on to extend such powers, it is reasonable for us to ask whether the authority is adequately using the powers it currently enjoys. It seems that the G.L.C., a body which covers an extremely wide area, has failed to capture the breadth of vision to equal the extent of its physical size. For example, we have had much discussion of the question of compensation. The proposed motorway box will bring this question very much to the fore. It is yet another assertion of the false proposition that the needs of men on the move must take precedence over the needs of mankind in his home. Transport by sea, air or road cannot be considered more important than the need of a family to live its life in its own house.
The G.L.C. need only announce an intention, whether in connection with walkways or a mammoth scheme like the Greater London motorway box, to deprive people who live in the shadow of an intention, and not of a fact, of perhaps one-tenth of the value of their homes. This shows that the G.L.C. exercises enormous power and influence. One wonders whether it appreciates the effects of speeches made by its leading members about its intentions.
I have constituents who have been placed in an impossible position because, being desirous of moving, they have found themselves with houses that are reduced to the value of the mortgages they hold on them, and sometimes even below that. Such families are not only impoverished but immobilised.
The old Labour L.C.C. used to get over this problem by being a great buyer of property. It was usually purchased by agreement and it was always able to find good uses for housing and space. The G.L.C. needs wider compensatory powers—I have listened with sympathy to the speeches which have been made on this subject by hon. Members on both sides—to a much greater extent


than the old L.C.C. because it does not possess as wide a range of need as the old L.C.C. The L.C.C. had a variety of reasons for acquiring houses—for example, in connection with children and old folk—but this variety of functions is not enjoyed by the G.L.C. Therefore, it needs compensatory powers, because it lacks that variety of powers which made the L.C.C. an omnivorous acquirer of buildings.
This is the fault of the Party opposite, which now controls the G.L.C. My constituents are paying dearly for the political victory which they acquired as a result of moving these powers from the L.C.C., giving them to the G.L.C. and spreading them over a wide area. The compensatory authority can no longer utilise the buildings for which it is responsible, so the action which is suggested in the Bill, the proposal which gives the G.L.C. borrowing powers in relation to the local authorities, is a line of thought which the G.L.C. should explore further. It should consider buying houses as an agent for the London boroughs which now have the duties which used to be the direct duties of the L.C.C. The boroughs still have the need and the requirement for large houses and could look to the G.L.C. to resume the acquisition policy on their behalf.
These houses can be put to good use in rehousing families on the waiting lists, which are still great in London, providing homes for people in care and in many other ways. The boroughs must simply refuse to allow the G.L.C. to drive huge wedges through areas in their responsibility, bulldozing all in their path and casting into misery hundreds of families on either side of the devastation. The Bill contains no such special powers of purchase or compensation.
I am not without sympathy for the point of view that this might be said to be a general argument, but the G.L.C. is a very special case. If it did take its courage in both hands and put forward some special compensatory powers on the lines that it was a special case, it is likely that my right hon. Friend would consider them sympathetically. But he has not been able to comment, because no such proposal has been put forward.
If the G.L.C. is not prepared to take any of these steps, one wonders whether it should be allowed to have its Bill or

its motorway box, because it is not entitled to either at the expense of individual householders who happen to have the misfortune to live, not right in the path of the monster, or perhaps far enough away to be out of trouble, but in a huge grey area which spreads out on either side of the proposed roadway, where the quality and value of living will be sadly and suddenly reduced. The House should not give the G.L.C. its Bill until it brings forward proposals to solve these problems or else gives an undertaking to abandon the motorway box idea.
I am particularly interested in Clause 39, which would extend the time for the acquisition of land for the Wandsworth southern approach area. I have the misfortune to have most of the Wandsworth Bridge southern approach area in my constituency. It is a place of terrible devastation. Year after year, people's quality and standard of living has been declining there. Now, the G.L.C. is asking for further time still. Instead of getting all the people out of this area, it has allowed to continue some wretched roads which look like Dante's Inferno.
I refer to Huntsmoor Road, Marl Street, Jews Row and Warple Road. In these places, people should not be asked to live in our time. I am ashamed that they exist in my constituency. I can conceive of no worse place in which to live. The houses are broken down, water comes in, the street outside is bulldozed with puddles—it is a dreadful place. Those who live in these areas and whom the G.L.C. refuses to move should, in my opinion, be got out.
In Huntsmoor Road, I refer to Mrs. Pearson, whose permission I have to say that, under the pressure of these events upon her family, had to go into hospital. She should not be asked to come out of hospital and go back to this terrible area. I am thinking also of Mr. and Mrs. Rumble higher up the same road, who are in similar case. A child of Mrs. Pearson's fell ill of bronchitis in a house full of damp.
This terrible place should be cleared up. The G.L.C. should not refer each case, as it now does, to the medical officer of health, relying on him to say that the house is uninhabitable in the strictly legal and technical sense. If the G.L.C. wants its Bill it is entitled to it


only if it is prepared to deal with these problems on a human basis and say that this whole area is uninhabitable and get the remaining families out. If it can give some assurances to this effect, I would be happy to see the Bill go through. I would wish to intervene at some later stage to prevent the Council getting the Bill if it does not give an assurance in relation to the area of the Wandsworth Bridge southern approach.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: It may seem strange that a Member from Norfolk should speak on a G.L.C. Bill. However, I spend more time in London than I spend in Norfolk. The only point I want to raise arises on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Amendment was not moved, but was spoken to.

Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Sir.
I know nothing of the background of this matter. In fact, I did not even know about it until it was mentioned. As a matter of principle I believe that it is far better for the district valuer to deal with all the claims of compensation on behalf of local authorities or public departments. I am a chartered surveyor. I am also a member of the Norfolk County Council. I am convinced that the Norfolk county valuer, and many other valuers in similar positions, would much prefer the district valuer to continue to deal with these claims.
The district valuer's office has built up a large amount of expertise. District valuers are free from the pressures which can exist in local authorities. I know that they do exist for officers paid by local authorities. It is a great pity that many more powers are being transferred from district valuers because of the immense duties put upon them by the Labour Government. More recently, the compulsory acquisition of pieces of road for road widening has been transferred from the district valuer to the county valuer in my county.
Nothing I say should be construed as being any criticism of any valuer, be he county, borough, or district valuer. I

merely say that district valuers have built up a large amount of expertise. They are used to all these cases. Many of these things merely burden county valuers with jobs they would rather be without. The main job of the county valuer in my county is to look after a large small-holdings case.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I congratulate the Greater London Council on bringing a useful Bill before the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on introducing the Bill so clearly and explaining its several Clauses. To complete the congratulations, I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on the service which he has done by drawing attention to the hardships caused by the law of compensation, not merely to the people of London, but to people throughout the country who are faced with the exercise of powers such as those set out in the Bill and who find that they must make sacrifices for the common good, or in the interests of progress, or whatever we like to call it. As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said, even a mere expression of intention to carry out some works may cause hardship for individual owners.
This debate on a Private Bill has drawn our attention once again to the inadequacies of the general law in that respect. We all sympathise with the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that too many Private Bills get through the House without the general public's knowing what hits them, because only when they become law and these powers are exercised does a member of the general public realise what he may suffer as a result of what we have allowed to pass through the House.
On Private Bills precedent is everything. Once one Clause has got through in one Private Bill, it can get through in any Private Bill thereafter. This is particularly so in this Bill. It was only in 1967 that the City of London had the initial Clause on walkways. This has been and will be the precedent for future legislation in Private Bills on this subject. Each time, a little more is added to the powers acquired by the local authority in a previous Bill.
I sympathise with the points made by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford and with the examples he gave. I was particularly impressed by his point that under Clause 6 certain citizens can object and make their voices heard, but that those in some neighbouring county or district who find their streets blocked up through the activities of the council in laying conduits have no right to object at any stage. That is true, but it is also true in any sewerage matter. When a local authority is laying a sewer down ones street, one has no right to compensation for the disturbance it may cause to one's residence or business.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford said that the Greater London Council has not done much publicity about walkways. My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) said that he only found out about them when he read about them in the Bill. We cannot blame the Greater London Council for this. Walkways started in the City of London Bill two years ago, and I do not think that the G.L.C. is to blame for people not knowing what they are, or what rights may be taken away from them when the walkways are set up. This only reinforces the need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey said, for national legislation on the subject of the removal of the individual's rights and amenities—without compensation in so many cases.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford said that here was an opportunity for the G.L.C. to put this right. In practice, he must know that it is not an opportunity at all. Had the G.L.C. tried to amend the general law, the Ministry would have put in memoranda in Committee, and those Clauses would never have come back to us on Report. Therefore, from a practical point of view this was not an opportunity for the Greater London Council to seek special treatment outside the general law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said, it is unfair to put on the G.L.C. the onus of producing amending legislation on compensation, which is such a complicated subject.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the statements made by the Greater London Council, does the hon. Gentleman think it

reasonable that it should put to the test the assertion he has just made on its behalf, and ask for powers? Then, if the Government turn them down in the way he suggests, its case would be much strengthened. But at present the responsibility must lie with the council.

Mr. Page: There is always a time-scale on Private Bills. To put in subjects one knows will be knocked out may lose one the Bill altogether. It is reasonable in those circumstances, when the Greater London Council has made its position well known by the protests it has made over the years, that it should try to get through this useful Bill without putting up its own obstruction to it by including too much.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford suggested that the Liverpool Bill precedent could have been adopted. I do not think that it would have fitted this Bill as regards walkways. It was a precedent for the power to purchase property that might be damaged alongside a motorway. I do not think that that would have been effective in this case.
We face an unusual complaint about the Bill. The usual complaint against Private Bills is that they seek to amend the general law geographically, that they seek special treatment for one area, with the argument that the law needs altering there. The counter-argument is that if the law needs altering it should be altered in a public Bill, and not merely in one geographical area.
The argument for speciad treatment of a local authority bringing forward its Private Bill is based on the allegations of fact set out in the Preamble. It is not for the House to examine the truth of the Preamble; that is for the Committee. We in the Chamber must consider whether the principle behind the Bill is so repugnant that we do not want to send it to the Committee, that we do not want to see it again in its process through the House. I do not think that we could say that about this Bill. It has some very useful proposals.
Therefore, we are in the unusual position tonight of meeting the argument of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, who tells the G.L.C., "You should not have brought forward this Bill without


trying to amend the general law." However much one disagrees with the general law on compensation—and I go a long way with the hon. Gentleman—that argument would put local authorities in an extraordinary position. They would be told that they must not seek to improve the administration of an item of local government without amending the general law on some other subject. Perhaps that would be very satisfactory, for I think that under those circumstances we should not get any private Bills before the House. But we should not be serving the needs of local government if we put on such a bar.
However, some points in the Bill need very careful consideration, such as Clause 5, dealing with sludge. I should have thought that sludge is really sewage. Perhaps it is merely a technicality that it is not sewage in law, and therefore without a Clause of this sort the Greater London Council could not treat it as sewage and lay it in sewers. But a point against this is that as the law stands the council should put it in ordinary pipes, and seek powers through the Pipelines Act to convey treated sludge. In that case it would be subject to payment of certain compensation, which it does not have to pay when laying a sewer. The Committee will have to decide later whether it is merely the correction of a technicality or an evasion of payment of compensation.

Clause 12 deals with walkways. It follows the precedent of the City of London Act, 1967, but goes very much further. This, again, should be considered carefully in Committee. It goes further by saying that the council
… may carry out all such works and provide all such facilities as they may think fit the purpose of laying out or rendering suitable for a walkway any way or place.…
It follows from that that there are compulsory powers of purchase to carry out the duty.

I hope that the Committee will examine carefully the Clauses which go further than the City of London precedent. Clause 15 does, when it places on boroughs responsibility for maintenance of the walkways. Clause 22 goes wider in favour of the council on compensation matters. Clauses 25, 26 and 27 are all additional to the City of London precedent.

But this does not justify us in saying that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. I hope that the House will send it to a Committee, which can carefully consider all these details, important as they are. I do not feel that we can say that the principles embodied in the Bill are so repugnant that we should not give it a Second Reading.

9.54 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): On several occasions I have been in the position occupied tonight by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), and I congratulate him on the admirable clarity with which he introduced this complex Bill. I am sure that he did it very much better than I could have done.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is right to say that, on these occasions, the House should find some time, although not at too great a length, to look at the principal provisions, because precedents have a peculiar way of recurring, although I do not think they go so far, usually, as the Section introduced into the Liverpool Corporation Act prior to the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857.
Section 87 of the Liverpool Corporation Act went through the House at a late hour. It said, "The town clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved". Thus, the town clerk got his own private Act of Parliament and I gather that succeeding town clerks of Liverpool took advantage of the provision for some years until the matter was put right in the 1857 Act.
It is right to look at Bills presented by public authorities but it is not advisable, constitutionally or any other way, for me to criticise but only to comment on some things in a way which may be helpful to the House. My right hon. Friend and any other Ministers involved will be compounding a report upon the Bill as a whole and this will be available to the Committee for its assistance 14 days before it begins its consideration. All the points mentioned in the debate will be looked at by my right hon. Friend and the other Ministers concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke with great sincerity about the problems of compensation. He is always most


anxious to help his constituents in any hardship he thinks they have. I want to say two things on this aspect. It is true, as the hon. Member for Hornsey said, that the G.L.C. has made some representations to the Department about the general law of compensation, but, in the major communication it sent—incorporated in a report presented to the G.L.C. on 21st June, 1966—it did not depart at all from the general principle that market value should be the basis of compensation. Neither, incidentally, have any of the other bodies which have submitted evidence or representations to the Department taken the view that there should be a general departure from that principle.
It is true, however, that, on 17th December last, a report of the G.L.C. brought forward the idea of ownership grants. This is being considered along with other ideas on the subject of compensation. I understand that the ownership grant proposal is not a general departure from what is considered the appropriate basis, but would operate in certain cases.
Secondly, there has been undertaken for some time an interdepartmental review on compensation, in which these representations and others are being considered. In due course, my right hon. Friend will be looking at the whole of that review.

Mr. Graham Page: May I press the hon. Gentleman again on what is meant by "in due course"? After this debate, it is obvious that the report should be early. I hope that he will convey to his right hon. Friend that it is now even more urgent.

Mr. Skeffington: I shall certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the observations made in the debate. Substantial progress has been made in the review. Indeed, I think that it is virtually completed, so I hope that there will be no undue delay in considering the matter further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Member for Crosby referred to the Liverpool Corporation Act. That was not a general departure from the basis of market valuation. In addition to what the hon. Member said about allowing

strips of land along the motorway to be purchased, it gave——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and on the Motion relating to New Towns may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Skeffington: In the normal way under that Act and under statute law, the notice to treat must be served within three years and the compensation payable is the compensation payable at the time of the service of the notice. The Liverpool Corporation Act allowed owners to grant an option to the authority to purchase. This was to be a long-term project taking perhaps over 20 years so that long after three years from the Act the corporation could exercise the option to treat, which meant that compensation would be payable at that date. Those who took up such an option might have received less compensation, but the general view was that they would not. No doubt most of them have enjoyed the benefits of the Act.
I will ensure that the comments which have been made about compensation are communicated to my right hon. Friend. This is a complex matter and fairly radical Statutes would be needed to alter this basic law. I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby and my hon. Friend will not think that this is lip service. I agree with my hon. Friend. He did right to put on record the changes which the Government have made in the law of compensation and the fact that in Clause 69 of the Housing Bill, the proceedings on which we started today, there is a new provision giving additional compensation to the owner-occupier which I


am sure will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Crosby. At least, in view of what he has said in the past, I shall be very surprised if he does not welcome it.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referred to what I might almost call his King Charles' head. It would not be right for me to enter into the polemics of the matter, for two reasons. First, when he originally introduced this subject, I made a speech very much like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I particularly remember dealing with the 20 cases. Secondly, whether it be the district valuer or the valuers employed by the local authority they must act under the Statute and quite impartially. If they do not, there are certain remedies open to the citizen.
I should go a stage further in case there is any suggestion that the staffs of

local authorities act differently or appear to be biased or unfair. I have looked at this matter carefully and I can find no evidence whatsoever that the staffs of local authorities act unfairly or are biased. I do not say that that was the charge of the hon. Gentleman, even by implication. This is a very honourable profession dealing with complex matters. Having looked at the evidence and from personal experience, my view is that they discharge their task with great skill and usually with great humanity.
The Bill is complex. The reports will be coming from the Ministry. As the hon. Member for Crosby said, it is an important Bill which makes very useful provisions. I hope that the House will feel that it can give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

IMPORT DUTIES (TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS)

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order 1968 (S.I. 1968, No. 1948), dated 9th December, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th December, be annulled.
The Order is made under the Import Duties Act, 1958, the effect of Sections 3(6) and 13 of which is that the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, nay make Orders temporarily exempting goods from import duties, and such Orders are subject to annulment by this House.
The reason why my hon. Friends and I have put down the Motion is that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in their Third Report drew the Order to the special attention of the House. As the House knows, the Select Committee considers all Statutory Instruments, not on their merits, but with a view to seeing in general that Ministers are acting with propriety in the exercise of the powers of delegated legislation given to them by Statute. The Select Committee has resolved to draw this Order to the special attention of the House on the grounds that its form calls for elucidation, and that its drafting appears to be defective.
Two points emerge from the Report of the Select Committee. The first point is a regrettable but relatively minor error. The Schedule to the Order, the purpose of which is to exempt temporarily certain goods from Import Duty, defines those products which are to be exempted, sometimes in considerable detail. Most of the products to be exempted are extremely complex chemical products, the names of which I find difficult to pronounce. The chemical industry is evolving so fast that that it is becoming increasingly complex, and it is therefore not surprising that the methods of definition also should become complex.
As is explained in the evidence given to the Select Committee, the object of defining the products concerned must be, first, to avoid overlap, and, secondly, to give to the Customs, which has to administer

the Order in Council, a workable method of proceeding.
On page 3 of the Order, under Tariff heading 27.07, the Order provides that there shall be exempt pyridine bases which are estimated by a method which is referred to as method No. RB 1–62 of "Standard Methods for Testing Tar and its Products", published by the Standardisation of Tar Products Test Committee. The Select Committee inquired about the availability of that method to interested parties. The Treasury Memorandum which is published as an appendix to the Select Committee's Report states that the standard method just referred to, RB 1–62, is a method which is out of date. The memorandum continues:
It would undoubtedly have been better if the reference in the Order had been to Method RB 1–67 . ."—
a method which has subsequently been published.
The Treasury Memorandum concedes that there has been what I conceive to be a simple error on the part of the two Ministries responsible for bringing forward the Order. In view of the great number of Orders published, it is surprising that errors are not more frequent. But the House will agree that it is right for it to insist that the highest standards are observed by the civil servants responsible for drafting Orders and that it is also right for the Select Committee to be as vigilant as it has been in this case.
The second matter is more significant. The Select Committee inquired about the numbering system specified in the rules of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, referred to in Article 1, paragraph (2), of the Order, which reads:
In the said Schedule 1—
(a) a reference to I.U.P.A.C. numbering, in relation to a compound having a ring structure, is to be taken as a reference to the system of numbering such compounds specified in the rules of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
The significant point is that this part of the Order does not say that the relevant I.U.P.A.C. numbering to be applied will be the numbering which is in effect at the time of the Order. The result is that if the I.U.P.A.C. changed its numbering, the Schedule itself, in relation to matters defined by reference to


I.U.P.A.C. numbering, would be altered. This, for example, would apply to the item under tariff heading 29.22 on page 21 of the Order, "6-Aminochrysene (I.U.P.A.C. numbering)".
The Order is, in effect, giving to the I.U.P.A.C. the power of delegated legislation. My argument is that this is beyond the powers which were intended to be given to the Minister by the Import Duties Act.
We see two further examples of a similar kind in the Schedule.
One of them appears on page 5 under tariff heading 28.49,
Silver protein, mild, which satisfies the requirements of the British Pharmaceutical Codex.
Here, again, there is no reference to the Codex published at a certain date or the Codex now in effect. It is true, as stated in evidence and reported by the Select Committee, that this Codex is, at present at any rate, published only every five years with a supplement every two and a half years. I suppose the probability is that there will be no alteration in the Codex while this Order remains in effect, because it only remains in effect until the end of this year. But the possibility remains that the authors of the British Pharmaceutical Codex might decide to change their practice and to amend it at any time. It is this possibility with which the House ought to be concerned.
The third example I wish to mention appears on page 19 under tariff heading 29.16,
Antimony potassium tartate, which satisfies the requirements of the British Pharmacopoeia.
Here we have an example of a case where the authors of the British Pharmacopoeia could, by changing the requirements which they publish, alter, in effect, the category of imports exempt from duty. This is the matter to which the Select Committee has drawn attention, and I should like to quote from the evidence given to it. At Question 17, the Chairman said:
I note that has not been identified by its year of publication?".
He was referring to the British Pharmaceutical Codex, and the answer was:

Where reference to this is made it is always taken to be the one which is authorised. In the front of the British Pharmaceutical Codex you will see a date of publication always quoted which shows when it came into operation. I am certain that where a year is not specified it does refer to the current volume. If reference were made to a previous volume it would, in fact, say so.
Question 18 was:
This you are expressing as a matter of custom amongst chemists?".
and the answer was:
As an accepted and well-established custom, yes. Anyone who wanted to analyse silver protein according to the British Pharmaceutical Codex would use the current volume which is authorised for use.
The evidence shows that the assumption, at any rate amongst chemists, would be that the volume referred to was the current volume.
I think that it is perhaps a little ambiguous what "current" means. As I read the evidence, it means the volume which is in effect at the time when it is consulted, and not simply the volume which was current at the time that the Order in question was made. In any event, in all these cases we find that there is a reference to another publication, not itself an Order in Council, which may be changed by the authors of that publication. We do not find anything in the Order which states that the publication referred to must have existed before the date of the Order, or any exact definition.
There are a number of examples where the Order refers to publications or other authorities by a date. On page 51 of the Order there is a reference to
glass prescribed by British Pharmacopoeia, 1953".
The fact that the year of publication is mentioned reinforces the argument which I am deploying in relation to the cases where no date is mentioned.
The hon. Lady may be aware of the Home Office poisons rules, which are referred to in the evidence published by the Select Committee, where it is the practice to get over this problem by saying that when the British Pharmacopoeia or the British Pharmaceutical Codex are referred to that
shall be construed as a reference to the edition or publication having effect on the date on which these rules were made, together with any amendments made thereto before that date".


There is no possibility there of delegated legislation, but there is no such limitation in this Order in relation to the three points which I have mentioned.
Thus we object to the Order on the ground that Ministers are exceeding their powers. They were given power by the Import Duties Act to vary or remove duties, and what they are doing is delegating that power to the authors of other publications. I intend no criticism of the authors of these publications. They are worthy publications, and highly reliable, but that is not the point. The point is whether Ministers are acting within the limits of the power given to them by the Statute. The House is very jealous of the powers which it gives to Ministers, not surprisingly. It is increasingly jealous because the numbers of Statutory Instruments is increasing all the time. In 1967 there were something like 2,000 Statutory Instruments which occupied in the bound volumes, nearly 2 ft. of shelving in the Library.
This is why we have a Select Committee and why we attach special importance to its reports. It is why we value the fact that it has the advice of your Counsel, Sir Robert Speed, Mr. Speaker. There are two previous relevant cases which the House ought to bear in mind. In 1963 the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations were introduced and the Select Committee commented adversely on them. Those Regulations required persons to obey certain British Standards and codes of practice, and they defined those standards and codes of practice as being those which were already published, and also those which were to be published from time to time, and any amendments of the existing Regulations. The Minister concerned withdrew the Regulations and substituted ones which did not offend in that way.
In 1964 the Weights and Measures (Equivalents for dealing with Drugs) Regulations also raised the same point, perhaps in a way more directly comparable to the case before us. There again the British Pharmacopaeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex were at issue.
That Order specified equivalents between apothecaries weights and metric weights, and it permitted dealers in drugs to use the equivalents. Secondly, it required that after certain dates orders

for certain drugs should be carried out in metric weights. The particular part of that Order which is relevant was Article 3, which said that any manufacturer or wholesaler or retail dealer who served or supplied in certain forms, a drug for which a monograph existed in the 1963 edition of the British Pharmacopaeia or the British Pharmaceutical Codex, or any amendment or new edition thereof, should after a certain date comply with certain requirements.
Two of the same documents we are concerned with tonight were at issue. It is true that there is a distinction between that case and this, because originally in the case I have quoted the words "or any amendment or new edition thereof" were used. We are not exactly on all fours with that case. Nevertheless, the present Order does leave it open for someone else, the editors of these publications, to amend the definition and thus to exercise a power of legislation.
When this case was debated in the House in 1964 the point was made that it was a serious one, because criminal penalties might conceivably be involved if there was a breach of the Regulations. I am not clear whether criminal penalties could be involved in the case we are discussing, I imagine not. Even if that is the case, it does not remove the anxiety which we feel on this side of the House about the point to which the Select Committee has drawn attention.
The Weights and Measures Order was debated in this House on 20th April, 1964, when a number of hon. Members, respected for their knowledge of these matters spoke. These included my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), the hon. Gentleman, as he then was, the Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher), and the hon. Member as he then was for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. Horace King), who said:
… the issue we are debating tonight is whether we are prepared to hand over to anyone outside Parliament power to make Jaws which have never been approved by Parliament. I want to remind the House of one or two basic principles. The Statutory Instruments Committee was founded because under the present pressure of business Parliament cannot make laws in the detail which is necessary. What Parliament can do is to make laws, and, in certain parts of those laws, empower a Minister to write out specific details in Statutory Instruments or Orders or Regulations. Ever since Hewart's excellent book, "The New Despotism"—indeed, if not


before then—Parliament has been anxious about the power which it gives to the Executive, anxious that that power should not be badly used in any way.
Later you added, Mr. Speaker:
It is worth pointing out for the record that the Statutory Instruments Committee, which examines thousands of Instruments every year, very rarely has to report one, but I think that when it does report one it has the right to expect the support of its colleagues in the House of Commons"— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 1030–3.]
Those words are relevant to the Motion because, as I have said, this is a parallel case.
It may be asked: what is the result if, every time there is a significant change in techniques and the British Pharmacoepia or Pharmaceutical Index is changed, a new Order must be brought before the House? This may be tiresome and mean that many Orders will be necessary, but this happens in many cases. The Ministry of Transport, when acting under the Road Safety Act, 1967, produces a new version of the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations every time a new standard list appears giving instructions about the testing of vehicles and the methods to be employed. That is a case where a method has been found of avoiding the problem which we are discussing. We may in future find less cumbersome methods of dealing with this problem. In the meantime, we must operate using the methods we have.
Fortunately it is open to the Government to lay an Amending Order to put the matter right. I hope that the House will attach the appropriate weight to the Report of the Select Committee and to the words I have quoted from the debate in 1964. I also hope that the Minister will say that the Government will publish an amending Order to put right both matters to which the Select Committee drew attention.

10.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): The Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1968, exempts from import duty for periods of up to a year some 2,500 articles. The definitions of 16 of those articles include references to other documents. In each

case these definitions, including the references to other documents, have been agreed with the applicants and the Customs, and have then been advertised in the Board of Trade Journal before inclusion in the Order.
To include in such Orders the relevant extracts from other documents might on occasion—though I do not say this would necessarily be the case here, since we have not sought to proceed in this way—raise difficulties of copyright. It would certainly increase the cost of producing the orders and the price to all purchasers, the great majority of whom have no cause to refer to these other documents. Our proceeding by reference is a long-standing practice, which trade and industry have found acceptable. We have received no objections to our advertisements from the public on this score, and have had no difficulties in practice.
I can assure the House that all the documents referred to in the No. 6 Order are standard works of reference in their particular fields. They will certainly be well known, and readily available, to persons in laboratories likely to have to refer to them in connection with the No. 6 Order. I therefore believe that it is reasonable to make such definitions by reference. I do, however, think that it may be for the greater convenience of some purchasers of these Orders if we were to include the addresses of the publishers of the other documents mentioned. This we intend to do in future.
Even in the case of Tar Test Method RB1–62, which relates to the Fifth Issue of the "Standard Methods for Testing Tar and its Products" published in 1962 but superseded by the Sixth Issue in 1967 before this Order was made, I am assured there has been no difficulty of access. It is not even necessary to obtain the whole publication, as copies of the relevant method are freely available on request from the publishers. Moreover, the method is reproduced in an identical form in both the 5th and 6th editions. Nevertheless, I readily accept that our reference to only the earlier edition may cause some unnecessary confusion. Either edition will do, and it would have been better if we had made that quite clear.
Where it is necessary to refer in an Order to another document it is desirable that there should be no doubt as to which is the relevant issue of that document.


In those cases where no specified issue has been mentioned in a temporary exemption Order, it has been, and will continue to be, the practice of Customs to treat the reference as applying to the issue of the document current at the date of making the Order. That is a slightly different definition from that given by the hon. Gentleman.
In practice, there has never been any problem. Nevertheless, I accept the need for absolute clarity in this matter. In future, therefore, we shall include a note in these Orders to make it clear that references to other documents are to be construed as references to the issues of those documents current at the date the order was made, unless reference is made to a different specific edition.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of sub-delegation. The documents mentioned in the No. 6 Order existed before it was made. They are not amended very often and we usually know some time in advance if any amendments are in prospect. But the possibility of any sub-delegation in practice from such subsequent amendments is avoided by our administrative practice, which I have already mentioned, and any doubts on this score will in future be entirely removed by the additional note which we intend to insert.
I agree that the form of this Order could be improved, but its deficiencies do not go to the substance and I am confident that the Order will not cause difficulty in practice or undue inconvenience to anyone. Accordingly, I think that it would be reasonable for the Order to stand, rather than put commerce and industry to the inconvenience and cost of replacing it by a revised Order. I therefore commend the Order to the House.

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Lady said that in future the Department would make a practice of including a note in the Order, which I take it would be part of the Order and have statutory effect, explaining that the references to other documents are references to the editions in force as the date of the order. I welcome that statement. But is it the hon. Lady's intention to leave this Order as it stands without an amending Order, which would be a simple matter?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we do not believe that there has been any real problem. We are grateful to the Select Committee for drawing this matter to our attention, but we are satisfied that the Order as it is should stand if it can be accepted by the House that it is our intention, in case there should be even the remotest misunderstanding, to add a further footnote to any future orders.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. R. Graham Page: I am astonished by the hon. Lady's speech. She started by answering a question which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) did not put. Nor did the Select Committee put it to the House. It is the Select Committee's duty to consider whether documents referred to in a Statutory Instrument and not brought into the Statutory Instrument are available and easy of access to the public. It is quite proper to draw a Statutory Instrument by referring to such documents.
The Select Committtee, after hearing the evidence in this case, was satisfied that it was proper within the Statutory Instrument to refer to these documents and not copy them into the Instrument. But that is not the point. The hon. Lady has spent a considerable time in answering something which was not put to her. But the hon. Lady has informed the House that this Instrument is wrong in form, that it is sub-delegation of legislation. That is something far beyond the powers of the Minister, yet she does not intend to have an amending Order but says that in future Orders there will be included what should have been included in this one in the first instance.
I thought that this matter had been settled in 1963, when we had a very full debate on this matter on the building Regulations relating to Scotland. They were withdrawn when exactly this point was raised. Unfortunately, another Ministry had not noticed that this had happened in 1963 and brought forward a similar sort of Order in 1964, the Weights and Measures Regulations. These, too, were amended on the House's attention being drawn to them.
Why the hon. Lady has refused to bring in an amending Order in this case is beyond my comprehension. There can


be no doubt of the practice of this House, whatever the practice of the Customs may be. To speak of documents like the Pharmaceutical Codex or the Pharmacopoeia—published periodically, every 2½ years in one instance and another period in the case of the other— without mentioning the date of the documents read into the Order is giving the authors of such documents the power to legislate for this House without bringing it before the House.
This was recognised in 1963. I beg the hon. Lady to realise that neither she nor the Department loses face when attention is drawn to these technical points, which, although technical, have a great constitutional bearing on the powers of this House. For an amending Order she needs only a single Article saying that the documents referred to in the Instrument are those in operation at the time of the Instrument. She says that she will put it in future Orders but will not amend this one. She should think again.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak again to clear up certain points. I assure the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that loss of face does not concern the Board of Trade. Although we are grateful to him, I hope he will accept that some of his language has been a trifle highly coloured.
Perhaps I can expand a little on the implications of the suggestion that we should produce an amending Order. To produce an amending Order would take eight days and would mean incurring £550 in printing costs. Checking and passing the work would add to both the period and the cost. If this Order were withdrawn, there would be a period of several days during which goods normally subject to temporary exemption might be dutiable or subject to delay in clearance unless extra-statutory concessions could be authorised.

Mr. Graham Page: I did not suggest producing another Order of this volume. This is a complicated Order, expressing itself in long words no one can pronounce. Of course that would be expensive. I only want a one-sheet Order putting in the poisons sheet article referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I feel that there is an implication that we are being unnecessarily difficult. I am prepared to look at this again, but I repeat that this is not a problem which has arisen in practice, and I emphasise that. It is our practice to bring these Orders forward for a considerable number of years. We have taken note of the feelings of the Select Committee. We feel that this is not, in practice, a problem, but we are prepared in future to write in any extra clarification that should be thought necessary.
I must point out that over a considerable period we have been bringing forward precisely these Orders without any trouble, and at present we must ask for the Order to stand.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for at least saying that she will look at the matter again, and I press her to go even further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has rightly pointed out that we are not asking the Government to withdraw the Order. There is no reason why there should be any lacuna in the law or withdrawal of the Order. It can stand until the new amending Order is laid, which could be done relatively quickly. Even if it cannot be done in, say, a week, let it be done. Why cannot the Government introduce a one clause amending Order, using the wording employed in the Poisons Regulations, which is a perfectly simple blanket clause? It would clear up all the points whether there is a problem about sub-delegated legislation.
The Minister could look at the amending Order brought in in 1964 to clear up the weights and measure case. In the debate on that Order on 20th April, 1964 there was a speech by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Health in which he argued vigorously that no problem was presented by the original Order. She will find that after a very vigorous debate, which was longer than we shall perhaps have tonight, with a very distinguished cast of speakers, including the present Speaker of the House, the then Minister of Health made the concession and said clearly that he would put the matter right. He did so a few weeks later by a simple, one-clause amending Order. I cannot


see what problem would be caused if the hon. Lady did the same.
Many of the facts the hon. Lady mentioned are not on the point. The fact that these Orders are agreed by industry is not the point, nor it is the fact that the practice used is a long-standing one. It has been wrong if it has been a longstanding practice, and it is still wrong. That was settled by the two debates to which my hon. Friend has referred. The fact that a problem has not in practice arisen is not the point. The fact that the works of reference referred to are standard and respected works is not the point. The fact that the Ministry is prepared to include or supply the addresses of the compilers of those works is not the point.
The point is the powers of the House of Commons in relation to Ministers. The House has attached importance to this through hundreds of years of history. I quote again the words of Mr. Speaker:
It is worth pointing out for the record that the Statutory Instruments Committee, which examines thousands of Instruments every year, very rarely has to report one, but I think that when it does report one it has the right to expect the support of its colleagues of the House of Commons."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 1033.]
Those are the words to which I should like the Minister to pay attention. If she thinks it right to say that in future such Orders will include a note to the effect that the works of reference referred to are those already published, why is it not right to do the same with this Order by introducing a simple one-clause amending Order?
The Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is Chairman, has clearly set out its views. It has clearly stated that the situation is unsatisfactory. It follows, therefore, that the situation ought to be remedied. I very much hope that the Minister will state magnanimously that she is prepared to think again and that she will undertake to put the matter right by a simple Amending Order.

Question put and negatived.

DAWLEY NEW TOWN

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I beg to move,
That the Dawley New Town (Designation) Amendment (Telford) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1912), dated 29th November 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be withdrawn.
This Order is a revision of an Order made in 1963. Perhaps I may briefly give the background. The present Order was made on 29th November, 1968, it was laid on 5th December, 1968, and it came into operation on 13th December, 1968. The normal time for launching a Prayer against it has expired, and I thank the Government for having made it possible to move the Prayer tonight, the normal time having expired through a succession of accidents which were nobody's fault.
The story of the new town started with the Order of 1963 which is referred to in paragraph 2 of the present Order, and which contemplated a town of an ultimate population of 125,000, which is hatched in the plan attached to the present Order. The object of the present Order is to enlarge that town, roughly doubling it both in area and in ultimate population, and therefore contemplating a town of about a quarter-of-a-million people. The Motion is directed against the enlargement which is envisaged because, apart from the enlargement, if the population and the development targets are to be attained, it will mean a considerable intensification of the development which the development corporation will have to undertake.
The Motion is designed for the protection of the ratepayers of Shropshire as a whole, and I am moving it, frankly, at the request of the responsible authority, the Salop County Council. The council was drawn into this matter at an early stage, when they were first approached about the possibility of a new town in this part of Shropshire. It was put to them as a request to do something for the benefit of the West Midlands industrial area. We are all acquainted with the housing problem, in particular, of Birmingham and parts of the Black Country. The object of the new town was to help Birmingham and the industrial area by enabling a major exportation of population to take place, involving the provision


of new houses in very large quantities in the designated area, and—this is basic to the whole scheme—the exportation, too, from Birmingham and the West Midlands of the factories and industries to provide the jobs for the new residents in the town to be called Telford.
It was obvious that a scheme of this kind would mean a tremendous upheaval for those people already living in this area which is to be the site of the new town. The county council, nevertheless, decided that, in spite of the hardship which will be faced by the present generation, in the long run this is a scheme which they should support, not only to help the problems of Birmingham and the industrial area, but also because the great expenditure of money and the great development which would be involved in the designated area would mean the regeneration of a large area of Shropshire which had greatly suffered from the devastation of the industrial age.
This has always been the attitude of the county council, and my attitude. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends, but I am sure that they will not be insensible to the strong arguments in favour of the new town. I launched this motion on the basis that it is my wish and that of the county council that this large and ambitious project shall succeed.
The reason for launching the Motion is that, in so far as the development has happened in the original designated area, it is fair to say that expectations have not been realised. The industry and factories which were to have come from Birmingham and the West Midlands industrial area have not come in anything like the quantity anticipated and intended.
I want to focus on the implication of this to the county council. They have statutory liabilities in the provision of services on a large scale. It is not necessary to mention all the services, but three among them give some idea of the expenditure involved for a population of 250,000: schools, roads and local welfare services. These will be greatly increased in scale and importance by the doubling of the area and population of the town by the present Order.
When the county council has to make these large expenditures, it looks for recoupment from the rates of the people

coming to live in the area in question. If the necessary population does not arrive, there is bound to be a serious burden on the council because the recoupment hoped for is not achieved. There are three ways this can happen: houses can be built by the development corporation, but not occupied merely because there are no jobs available to attract people who will occupy them; they may not be occupied because they are deliberately kept empty, and reasonably so, by the development corporation, which considers it essential to have available a stock of houses in case an industry suddenly wishes to come to the new town and says that it must have housing facilities for its employees. The third factor is most serious for the county council; that the houses may be occupied not by people from outside the county boundary, but by those from inside Shropshire.
This results in the county council getting no new rate support grant and being left to bear the standing charges in the area from which the Shropshire people have moved, and these problems will be made so much more acute by the proposed enlargement of the new town. For all these reasons, and for the sake of protecting its ratepayers, the county council has felt impelled to ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government for certain guarantees.
The cost of providing services for which the county council is responsible is estimated, with reasonable accuracy, at about £100,000 for each 1,000 houses, and the council has been asking for some time that it should be given a financial guarantee of recoupment if the houses are not occupied and do not become rate producing as the services are provided.
The Minister knows the history since he took up his present position. He will know that a meeting took place which was attended by all four Members of Parliament from Shropshire at which this question was discussed. At an early stage his Ministry gave the county council an undertaking in somewhat bureaucratic language which, condensed, was that any reasonable case for financial contribution would be sympathetically considered, and that an undue burden in the council's finances would be regarded by the Department as a factor to be taken into account for the purposes of


the undertaking. Without intending to be rude or critical, I would describe that as a vague and woolly form of words and, not unreasonably, the county council did not find it very satisfactory. It wanted a guarantee in the terms of a financial formula.
The Minister will remember that the chairman, and the vice-chairman and other representatives of the county council came to his Ministry to meet him, with the Shropshire Members of Parliament, on 13th November, when the matter was again discussed, with the result that the Ministry has now offered what it calls standing machinery that contemplates the formation of a committee of representatives of the Ministry and the council to discuss a possible guarantee on the basis of a large number of assessments and figures. Without prejudice to the standing machinery, the council asks for something much more specific, for two reasons.
First, there is an additional financial burden on the Shropshire ratepayers if there is under-occupation of houses in the new town. Secondly, what is visually more important and likely to cause trouble, is that if a new town is built in a derelict industrial area the population will see within the designated area schools, welfare buildings, and so on, of a standard much higher than outside the designated area.
The council will obviously come under heavy criticism if the rest of the population of Shropshire finds itself paying financially in order that this designated area can have much better standards in these things. It is a real problem and the council, rightly, says that it cannot ignore it.
The council asks for two separate guarantees. First—and this has been discussed with the Ministry and it is well understood what is meant—a general guarantee against an undue burden; and, secondly, a specific guarantee in the event of the failure of the population intake, to use a rather unpleasant expression; that is, people not arriving.
The difficulty in a project of this kind is that it is necessary to make very large financial ccmmitments in advance. Some of these schools that are being planned cost more than £250,000. Things must be done well in advance, because we cannot run the risk of services not being

there if the population has arrived. Therefore, it is necessary to make very large forward assessments.
The expenditure to which the county council will have to commit itself includes, first, the actual construction of the buildings, and, secondly, in the event of the buildings not being fully utilised by the arriving population, the cost of staffing any that are unused.
The county treasurer has suggested what seems a very practical formula to protect the interests of the other ratepayers. It means that certain fairly broad assessments have to be made. First, a time-table must be agreed with the development corporation, which is the Minister's agent in this area, for planning the various stages. Secondly, the commitments that the county council must undertake within each period must be agreed. Thirdly, within each of those periods the corporation must say v/hat population it expects to arrive in accordance with its plan. This formula would have to apply to all expenditure which, once the county council had been committed to it, cannot, as a practical matter, either be avoided or reduced—and that may be a very large sum.
The suggestion is that this assessment should be made at quarterly intervals. At the risk of inflicting algebra on the House, it is possible to reduce this to a fairly simple formula. The quarterly expenditure, at the rate of £100,000 for 1,000 houses, works out at £25,000. That is multiplied by the number of unoccupied houses and divided by 1,000, thus giving the formula. I think that this is a reasonable demand.
I put this forward because this new town will not succeed and go forward as planned unless it goes forward on the basis of mutual trust and confidence. Unfortunately, that is now what is lacking. I am sorry to say that there is an increasing feeling in the council that the Ministry in this matter is deliberately dragging its feet, is unwilling to come to any specific agreement, and, as far as possible, is delaying everything.
As an instance of that perhaps I could mention a letter written by the clerk of the council on 3rd December. When we had a debate on new towns on 19th December, I informed the Minister that the council had not by then had a reply. In fact, a reply was received on 30th


December. Admittedly, Christmas had intervened, but that was a delay of 27 days in sending a reply to a not very complicated question on a matter which the county council regarded as of considerable importance.
I ask, apart from the acceptance by the Minister of the guarantee on the formula which I have suggested, that the Department should show more zeal, and a desire to bring this to a speedy and amicable conclusion.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) in thanking the Government for making time available for this debate, because it touches on a subject of immense consequences for the Members of Parliament for Shropshire, and I think that it is a subject which will be of increasing, rather than diminishing, concern.
My hon. Friend, with characteristic charity, welcomed the idea of a new town in east central Shropshire. There is no doubt that some years ago the idea of Dawley being created as a new town on the site of that area which had cradled the First Industrial Revolution was given a welcome in the county. I venture to suggest that if it had been known what would be the course of events, and that failure was to be reinforced by doubling the size of the new town, which is what is now proposed, the reactions of the county council could well have been somewhat different, and that the welcome that was originally accorded to Dawley would have been a great deal more searching and sceptical than it was.
My hon. Friend said that it was assumed that the development of the new town would see a complementary growth in industry and population, both presuming to be based upon interests which hitherto had been concentrated in the West Midlands industrial area. Experience so far has been that industry has not come in on the scale which originally had been assessed, and that the population has fallen, not merely below expectations, but has been drawn not so much from the industrial Midlands as from within the county itself.
Miscalculations of that character have substantial consequences for the county

authorities, and, confronted with this experience, to be presented with an Order which doubles the size of the new town, naturally enough raises considerable anxiety among many people in Shropshire, and it is an anxiety which I feel particularly. I feel this even more than some of my hon. Friends do, because the Oswestry division is situated at some modest distance from the new town, and unlike my hon. Friend I am not directly affected in a constituency way by the new boundaries which have been designated in this Order.
But one of the consequences of the new town is that there will be increasing emphasis to try to make this enlarged area more successful in attracting industry. It is disingenuous to suggest that this could be proceeded with without it having an effect on other parts of Shropshire.
By far the most effective weapon for the location of industry is the use of I.D.C.s. It will, therefore, be interesting to see if there will be a different test applied for industries applying for certificates for location in Telford new town as opposed to the rest of Shropshire, and particularly rural Shropshire which has problems of above national average unemployment in many areas— in the Oswestry employment exchange area the rate is over 5 per cent.—and which has declining industries in the sense that coal-mining, agriculture, the railways and War Departments all have the prospect of diminishing rather than increasing unemployment.
In these circumstances, there is a natural apprehension that Telford new town will become a rival for what industrial growth there may be for Shropshire, to the major disadvantage of the rural areas. I say this notwithstanding what I said earlier about the new town of Dawley in its original conception not being as successful in obtaining industry as the optimists had originally imagined. However, there are signs that industry may be moving to Telford.
There was a notice in the Shropshire Star about Fulton T.I. planning to build a tube factory in the area. I do not know whether there would have been any chance of such a factory being located at Bridgnorth, Oswestry, Wem, or any of the small market towns which


must either obtain industry through their own efforts—because they get precious little encouragement from the Government—or accept an employment prospect which can be described as nothing but bleak.
On 15th February the Border Counties Advertiser quoted the view of the Clerk of the Oswestry Rural District Council, who had said:
… the new town of Telford was … as effective a barrier to new industry coming to Oswestry as the Berlin Wall was in preventing the inhabitants of the east passing to the west.
They may be powerful words, but this is an issue on which the people of Oswestry hold powerful views. So they should, since the social infrastructure of of the county—its roads, welfare and education services, and so on—are likely to be prejudiced from the point of view of the remainder of the county in favour of the Telford designated new town.
My constituents therefore not only feel that they may find the Board of Trade intervening to discriminate in favour of Telford and against Oswestry, but that Oswestry will also suffer in respect of its schools, roads and social services. It should be remembered that the reverse situation might at least give it a chance to offer to industry the opportunity of coming to an area with a reasonable social infrastructure. The points that concern it are of major consequence, and I say this particularly on a day when the Hunt Committee's Report has, we understand, been received by the Government, although we have to wait six or eight weeks before its publication.
The development corporation has now developed an institutional interest. It has powerful people. It is staffed by men of distinction who know well how to tread the corridors of power. We know what we are up against in rural Shropshire, and we have to fight with what modest weapons are available. I hope that this debate will at least give us a chance, by virtue of a sympathetic Ministerial answer, to demonstrate that rural Shropshire in the development of Telford new town is not to be a forgotten area, shunned by Whitehall in its anxiety to make the new town a success, which all too often has eluded other new towns.
I hope, therefore, that when the Minister comes to answer this debate he will show a sensitivity to the very real difficulties which I believe are implicit to rural Shropshire in the development of the new town, and that he will show himself acutely sympathetic and will undertake to transmit that sympathy to the other Government Departments which, with his, will be involved in the whole question of allowing industrialists to go to whichever part of Shropshire they find most attractive.
There is widespread anxiety, and I believe that it is an anxiety that the right hon. Gentleman should be anxious to allay.

11.17 p.m

Sir John Langford-Holt: With my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. More) and for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for enabling this Motion to be debated tonight. I also undertake to delay the House for only a very short time.
In considering a matter like this one must remember that whereas these types of Orders seem of little significance to anybody else, they are very important to those people who live in the areas affected by the Orders, as this Order is to the part of the county which I represent.
There are many factors which are necessary for the success of a new town venture. First, a need must be proved. Second, the question of communications must be well thought out and covered. Third, there must be confidence, and, of course, educational services must be provided, as my hon. Friends have mentioned. I will not go further into this matter than to say that the Salop County Council wrote to the Minister on 19th November expressing, among other things, its misgivings in the sphere of education.
So far as need is concerned, one can only say that one of the basic needs is the arrival in far greater strength of industry into this new town. Industry is showing a singular lack of enthusiasm at this time, and I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry in hoping that this will improve in the future.
I turn to the question of communications, to which I will basically address myself. One only has to look at the railway maps of England to see what is happening in West Shropshire and Central Wales. This is very relevant at the moment, for two reasons. First, there are under construction two new towns—one at Telford, which we are now discussing, and another further west, on the borders of Wales, at Newtown. Shrewsbury is the gateway to Central Wales. At the very moment when Telford is beginning to get under way British Railways have cut off the electrification to the whole area, at Wolverhampton. I have fought, together with my hon. Friends, on many occasions at meetings with British Railways, but very little help has come from the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use what influence he can, if he wants Telford and Newtown to be a success, and to take up with British Railways the whole question of communications between Shrewsbury and the main electrified railway arteries of this country.
It is rumoured that even further isolation of this area is to take place. If the right hon. Gentleman does nothing else I invite him to look for a moment at a railway map and see what will be done if this whole area is cut off, right to the Welsh coast——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Order. It is concerned only with Dawley and its consequences on the surrounding areas. The hon. Gentleman cannot mention any other new town, or get on to wider policy matters.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I completely accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am using Newtown only as an example, because it emphasises what the effect will be on Telford. If Newtown is not a success, I do not think that Telford will be.
As for confidence, mine is limited. I said that we have to have the confidence of the people and of industry, as well as of the communications authorities— which means British Railways. The Government expect confidence on the part of the county council; they expect

it on the part of industry, and they expect it on the part of the people—but they express only pious hopes themselves. I can see no reason why everybody else should be expected to carry this confidence into effect when the Government themselves are not yet prepared to do so. I should like to have a chance to vote in order to express my feelings on this matter in the absence of a more forthcoming reply from the Minister, but I appreciate that this will not take place. I ask the Minister to believe that these matters are very important to us to the north and west of London. We are beginning to feel cut off already, and if the Minister cuts off this new town he will be doing great damage to its prospects and to the prospects for the whole county.

11.24 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I would have hesitated to intervene in a debate connected with Shropshire if I did not have a certain connection with the county. I also have a connection with the new towns in my area. I am an enthusiastic supporter of new towns, but it seems to me that they cannot be successful except when they have a growing economy.
One of the problems, as my hon. Friend has made quite clear tonight in talking about Telford——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is going into the question of new town policy, which is not in the Order.

Sir D. Glover: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to direct all my remarks to Telford.
The problem which my hon. Friends are pointing out in relation to Telford is endemic to the whole problem. When one has not got as big a growth as one would like, and one has not got it in Shropshire, then the worry is that the new town creates additional problems in the old towns. Every factory that goes to Telford cannot go to Oswestry, or Ludlow, or Shrewsbury, and, therefore, a growing problem is created in the old- established areas. I do not think that this is an isolated problem in Telford. It applies over the whole field——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ingenious, but I am afraid he is outside the Order.

Sir D. Glover: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought I was doing damned well. In fact I thought that was being rather hostile, because I thought I was sailing one point to the wind. I am surprised that you thought I was one point outside the wind, because I was linking Telford with the problems of Shropshire.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One can talk only about Telford tonight. One cannot talk about the wider problem, even relating it to Telford.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened with much fascination to my hon. Friend, because I understood that he was linking the fortunes of Telford with those of Oswestry. Can you, for our guidance, say whether it is in order for my hon. Friend to deploy his argument relating the condition of rural Shropshire to the development of Telford new town?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can only repeat the comments I have made to the hon. Member, that it is Telford that is under discussion tonight. Therefore, all remarks must be specifically related to Telford, to Dawley, and to the consequences of Dawley on the surrounding area. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss any other new town, or new town policy in general, and I am of the opinion that he is doing that, however ingeniously.

Sir D. Glover: I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will not mention any other area outside Shropshire, and I hope that if I do not mention any other area I shall remain in order.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, but from the speeches I have heard, the growth of Telford, or Dawley, will—because the growth of the national economy is proceeding at a very slow rate—work to the disadvantage of Ludlow and all the other old towns round about.
This is something which the Government have got to take into account in the whole policy of new towns, for which I am very enthusiastic. When they are dealing with the problem of Telford, if, because they are providing the facilities and the thrust to build up that town

they are creating poverty and stagnation in the other older towns around it, they are not really achieving any worth-while improvement in the community of Shropshire.
As there is a semi-stagnant economy, this is only too likely to happen with any new town, and it appears to be happening in Telford.
The drive is going into new factories in that area, with the result that people are being put out of work in Ludlow——

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Nonsense.

Sir D. Glover: It is not nonsense. It is true. The growth in these areas is not nearly as great as it would be, but for Telford. This is a problem which I do not think the Government have quite got into balance.
I must not go too far, or I should be out of order, but this is not an isolated problem; it applies all over the country, wherever there is a new town. It has been exemplified here tonight by the problems being created in Shropshire by the development of the new town of Telford.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: The enlargement of this new town makes more important than ever a matter to which I have referred from time to time in the House, and I hope that those hon. Members whose constituencies are rather closer to the new town than mine will forgive me if I intervene in this debate.
One of the most important things that any new town has to have, let alone a new town which is to be enlarged to the extent of this one, is a spirit of its own. This is an old and honourable part of England. It has, to me, great attractions. It is one of the cradles of the Industrial Revolution. But it is an area which is somewhat lacking in a centre or in any particular object to which all its people will look. It does not, for example, have a crooked spire like Chesterfield. It does, however, have one object within its boundaries which is not only unique to that neighbourhood or to England, but is unique in the world. That is the Iron Bridge, in Coalbrookdale.
I have served for many years, even before the subject became fashionable, on the Research Committee for Industrial Archaeology of the British Council of Archaeology. I am its worst attender, but that does not diminish my enthusiasm. It is a subject which attracts the attention of more and more people. Indeed, this new town itself is now to be named after Telford, who was, if not one of the pioneers, one of the engineers who gave the Industrial Revolution great impetus. I feel that the choice of that name shows that industrial archaeology is a particular interest of the neighbourhood.
The Iron Bridge in Coalbrookdale could give this new town the focus and cachet which any new enterprise needs to knit it together. It could put the town of Telford not only on the map of England, which will have to be done with a new name. It could put the town of Telford on the map of the world. If this bridge is cherished, people from abroad who have not only never heard of Telford but, perhaps, have never heard even of Shropshire, will come to this new town.
At the moment, however, this priceless possession, which could be such a help to the new town, is being completely neglected, partly by muddle and partly by fear of the cost. There have even been wrangles over who should pay such a small sum as £500 to have the bridge surveyed to decide what needs to be done to it. It is, as the House knows, the first iron structure in the world. It is the absolute origin of the whole of our modern age. For the sake of a small sum of money, it may well fall into the River Severn tomorrow.
I urge the Government not to deprive this new town of something of which all its new citizens will be proud but, instead, to divert a fraction of their attention to ensuring that this national possession, which is within the boundaries of this new town, is properly cared for.

11.35 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): Perhaps I could begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) on his recovery from the ailment that precluded him, earlier, from moving his Prayer— when it would have been a Prayer. I

should go on to congratulate him upon his negotiations, or machinations, with the usual channels to enable this somewhat unorthodox method of debating the Order to take place. I regret that this debate arose from an objection to the Dawley Order by the county council, but I am encouraged by what the hon. Gentleman said, and by what I knew already, that this is not, on his part or on the part of the county council, an objection in principle to the new town.
I want to put on record my appreciation of the good will and support in the West Midlands generally, and, in particular, in the area concerned, for this new town project, and I may add, for the name Telford which has been chosen for it. This has been widely welcomed, and it is something of an inspiration as a name. Perhaps in this connection I could refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), whose enthusiasm for industrial archaeology I had good reason to know of before he became a Member of the House. I am sure that the authorities concerned will take due note of what he has said about the Iron Bridge at Coalbrookdale, the importance of which I fully accept.

Mr. John Smith: Is that a promise?

Mr. Robinson: I will take it up with the authorities concerned; that is a promise.
I want to reaffirm the Government's commitment to this Telford project and our belief that the decision to go ahead with the larger new town is the right one. It will help to ensure success. We have heard from three hon. Members representing the County of Shropshire in which Telford is situated. It is perhaps a little ironical that we have not heard, for reasons which will be obvious to the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), whose constituency comprises the whole of the additional part of Telford which has been added by this Order. My hon. Friend is no doubt straining at the leash.
I feel confident that everyone concerned, certainly the Government, and the development corporation and the local authorities, will work together to achieve a successful new town. Some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) were a little


jaundiced in this respect. His phrase was "the success that has all too often eluded new towns elsewhere". I would remind him that new towns in general are a success story. It is a social project of which we have good reason to be proud.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose——

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has had a jolly good go at talking about Skelmersdale—I know that he did not mention it once—but he ought to let me get on with my speech. This town, too, will be a success.
The reason we have expanded the boundaries of what used to be Dawley and is now Telford, is to bring that success about more certainly and quickly. The real nub of what the hon. Member for Ludlow had to say was about the difference of view—I would put it no higher—between the county council and my Department over the nature of the assurances which we have given to the county council about assistance, should some of its worst fears be realised.
The hon. Member described very fairly what the anxieties of Salop County Council are. The county council has to provide certain services for the new town; it obviously cannot risk these services arriving late, but if the new town's progress is slower than was expected, or planned, these services might arrive early, and there would be that much larger a burden upon the county council.
These anxieties have been expressed by other county councils where other new towns have been established in their midst; and, generally speaking, they have not been realised in the event. However, I have given assurances, particularly at the meeting with the county council to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and those assurances about financial contributions by the development corporation were given in good faith. We certainly will ensure that sympathetic consideration is given to all local authorities providing services for new towns wherever an undue burden on their finances results.
It has been perfectly normal in new town development to operate in this way. It is only this county council which has been so insistent on trying to work out and develop and enshrine some advance

formula, which we do not think is workable, which we certainly do not think is necessary, and which no other county similarly placed in the whole history of the new town movement has found it necessary to insist upon. This council wants this formula to be agreed for determining special contributions should there be this shortfall in the use of the services which it has to provide because the population fails to arrive at the expected rate.
I repeat that we do not believe that the situation which the council fears will arise. Nevertheless, I have given the assurance that, if the situation does arise, we will certainly give it every consideration, but I am convinced that an advance formula is not the way to deal with it. One cannot just set down in advance all the relevant factors which might arise, nor assess in advance their impact on the council's finances. The situation can be tackled only when it arises, if it does.
I believe that the council's fears can best be tackled, first, by a careful and flexible programme of development in agreement between the development corporation and the council itself; and then, if the council feels that it has incurred loss for the reasons which have been explained, by a most careful assessment of the position then reached. It was to facilitate this that we proposed the establishment of standing machinery—standing machinery in the sense of permanent machinery—of representatives of the Department, the county council and the development corporation. Discussions about the scope of and procedure for this machinery are now proceeding.
I agree that Dawley did not attract industry as quickly as we would have wished, but there has undoubtedly been a marked improvement over the last few months. With the expansion and the arrival of Telford, so to speak, the development corporation has now, under a new chairman, Sir Frank Price, who is a dynamic personality, been making renewed efforts to attract industry. These efforts are already showing results. I can assure hon. Members that the Board of Trade is doing all it can to help within the Government's location of industry policy.
I totally reject the assertion of the hon. Member for Oswestry that the expansion of the new town would only


increase the scale of its failure. It is now recognised that it was the original shape and size of the new town which was its handicap and all who have any contact or connection with the new town are far more confident in the context of the expanded designated area. It is not unusual for a new town to take some time before it becomes really attractive to industry. It is easy to forget that the London new towns, now recognised as highly successful, had the same kind of difficulty in their early years. In some respects, Telford has a considerable advantage over them. It will be larger and it has a very substantial commercial and industrial base with the area now added, Wellington and Oakengates. If more development takes place, the whole area will steadily become more attractive to industry.
I find it difficult to understand where the hon. Member for Oswestry stands on this point. One moment he forecast that the enlarging of the designated area would only increase the scale of failure; next, he expressed the horrified fear that the success of Telford would have disadvantageous effects on the rest of Shropshire. I believe that neither his prophecy of doom nor his fear has any basis.

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, at this late stage, an intervention on my part would be a very inadequate way of trying to deal with that misrepresentation of what I said. Surely I observed, first, that the original new town had not been a success and that it seemed ironic that doubling the size was a reaction to what had not been thought a success. Secondly, I said that if all the energy of the Government was now directed to the end of promoting the success of Telford, it seemed to me that it was bound to have a consequence upon the likelihood that industries seeking development certificates will be granted certificates in rural Shropshire with the same ease as they will be granted certificates in the new town.

Mr. Robinson: I agree that there is not quite the same contradiction in what the hon. Gentleman has just said now as there appeared to be in his speech, and I am sure that, when he reads his speech in HANSARD, he will be glad that

he got the opportunity to put the record a little straighter.

Mr. More: I am on the Minister's side, but he frightens me by what seems to be his thinking. Merely by doubling the size of the new town one does not make it easier. I welcome the challenge, but it is much bigger than it was originally.

Mr. Robinson: In a sense, the scale is larger, but everyone who has studied it believes that, for attractiveness to industry, the new area of Wellington and Oakengates is much better than the old area of Dawley alone.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) referred to a rumour about the railways. I think I know that rumour, but I shall not specify it because I do not like to give credence to rumours. If I am right, I am assured that there is no truth in it whatever.
I come now to road communications. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is showing great co-operation in this matter. The Government fully accept the need for improved links between Telford and the conurbation of Birmingham. When the need was recognised, in July, 1967, my right hon. Friend commissioned a study from consultants into the question of a link between the new town and the M 6.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some grounds for hope, because the cutting off of the electrification to Shrewsbury was regarded as a great shock by Shrewsbury industry? This may be one of the contributory reasons to the difficulty of getting industry to go to Telford. Because of this awful change which has taken place, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to hold discussions between his Department, British Railways and the Board of Trade to see whether there are any grounds for my fears?

Mr. Robinson: I will certainly give the undertaking that I will discuss this point with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who would be primarily responsible.
In talking about the road links I would like to tell the House that my right hon. Friend expects to receive the consultants' report at any time now. As soon as he


has studied it and a scheme has been formulated and costed, he will give urgent consideration to its inclusion in the firm road programme.

Mr. More: Mr. More rose——

Mr. Robinson: Did the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene about the "Rabbit run"?

Mr. More: Yes.

Mr. Robinson: I was coming to that.
Before I do, I had better just say, on the M 6 and the link with the new town, that the statutory procedures that must be gone through make it unlikely that we can give a start before 1972. But my right hon. Friend has already provided for a proposed new link road in the trunk road preparation pool. I think that the House can take it that first-class road communications between Telford, the motorway system and the conurbations are assured.
When I met the county council and the hon. Member for Ludlow they represented to me that the existing minor road, affectionately, or otherwise, known locally as the "Rabbit run", between the southern part of the new town and Dudley, should be upgraded and improved. The county council's representations to my right hon. Friend will be most carefully considered. I know the importance that many people in the county attach to this road.

Mr. More: The right hon. Gentleman says that this study is being made by the Minister of Transport. More than three years ago I went with the chairman of our roads and bridges committee to see the Minister of Transport to discuss this specific matter, and impressed on him its importance. That is more than three years ago, and nothing has been done. Would the right hon. Gentleman at least ensure that on Monday, when his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade visits Telford, she is taken by the "Rabbit run"?

Mr. Robinson: I have no doubt that when my hon. Friend visits Telford all the problems, communications and otherwise, will be brought to her notice. I am sure that any that are my concern or that of the Minister of Transport will be brought to our notice in due course.

This has been a helpful debate. I am grateful for the general support for the idea of this new town that hon. Members have shown. I understand the fears of the county council, but genuinely believe that they are exaggerated. We have seen that before in the case of earlier new towns, and they have not been realised in the event. I hope and trust that this will be the case in Telford, and that this enlarged new town will go forward to greater and greater success, and will attract—which is perhaps the most important thing—the industry it needs and the jobs for its people.

Question put and negatived.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL

Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Alfred Morris, and Mr. Geoffrey Wilson nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Transport (London) Bill.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Leslie Huckfield and Mr. Fred Evans discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments; Mr. Joe Ashton and Mr. Eddie Griffiths added.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration to have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order:

Committee to have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:

Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

JOHN SILVER

11.55 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the disturbing case of John Erico Silver, and my thanks are also due to my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Social Services for being here at so late an hour—I almost said at so early an hour. I think that we are coming up to our sixteenth hour. Note might be taken of that by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
The brief circumstances of the case are that Mr. Silver, who has a history of mental illness and violent behaviour, took his wife and four children on a riverside picnic in a spot near Little-hampton, in Sussex, and there tied up his wife. When she escaped he killed his children, aged between six and two, with a hammer. What I wish to explore tonight is the nature of the treatment received by Mr. Silver before that ghastly event to try to discover how it came about that medical authorities who had had him in their care came to allow him to be at large.
I need to tell the House at this stage that at Sussex Assizes on 19th December Mr. Silver pleaded not guilty to murdering the children but guilty to manslaughter. The court was satisfied that he was suffering psychopathic disorders within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, 1959, and made an order under Section 60 of that Act for his detention in Broadmoor Hospital. The court also thought that it was necessary for the protection of the public to make an order under Section 65 of the Act requiring him to be subject to the special restrictions set out in that Section without limit of time. The chief effect of that order is that Mr. Silver may not be discharged from Broadmoor or transferred to another hospital without the consent of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. The implications of that order will be of some comfort to those of my constituents who have raised this case with me—in an extremely reasonable

manner, if I may say so—and have very properly sought certain assurances.
The matter was brought to my attention at Christmas by two members of Stanmore Baptist Church. Some of the good people associated with that church, which is one of the most respected institutions in my constituency, had for some time before the tragedy been giving aid and comfort to the Silver family— acting as Good Samaritans to them in their time of trouble.
It is clear from the testimony of two of my constituents that the mental health authorities and the police at Edgware knew for some time that Mr. Silver was mentally unbalanced to a degree that made him a potential danger to his family —and, indeed, to other members of the community. I quote from one of the letters which I have received, from a Stanmore constituent:
Mr. and Mrs. Silver and their children lived near us for two years—from 1964 to 1966—and my wife and I were very concerned at the way Mr. Silver ill-treated his wife and children. On many occasions police were called to their home and, such was his ferocity, they would send a minimum of eight to deal with him on each occasion.
I will interpolate here, so that the House may obtain a proper understanding of the situation, that I am informed that Mr. Silver is 6ft. 8in. tall and at the time of the killing was aged 28, and that his employment was that of a timber porter. My constituent continues:
It was very obvious from this man's behaviour that his attacks on his family were likely to lead to the death of one or other of them unless he was detained. This point of view was impressed on the medical authorities and others concerned with his case, but no effective action was taken until the death of the four small children.
My constituent continues,
It seems to me that, in particular, the Home Secretary should direct his attention to the activities or inactivity of the responsible officer at the Shenley Mental Hospital. Although Mr. Silver went to the hospital for treatment over a period of months, he was allowed home again to continue the ill-treatment of his wife and family until eventually he carried out the act which many of us who had tried to bring help and comfort to this small family had anticipated for some time.
As the House knows, it is, in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who carries responsibility for persons needing treatment for


mental disorders, including their supervision in the community and their informal or compulsory admission to hospital for observation and treatment; and so it is to his Department that I address my inquiries tonight. It will emerge later that Mr. Silver had, in fact, been seen by mental health doctors over a period of years, not months.
My constituent goes on to ask whether there has been some failure on the part of the medical authorities, particularly at Shenley Hospital, and concludes:
No action can now bring those four young lives back, but the least those of us who are deeply aware of the circumstances of this case can do is to try to get effective action taken to stop another tragedy of this kind before next Christmas comes round.
That is the purpose of my raising this matter on the Adjournment tonight.
The evidence I have just quoted with regard to the knowledge which the mental health authorities had about the dangerous nature of Mr. Silver's affliction is corroborated in a letter from another constituent, who says:
I am only anxious that nothing like this occurs again. … It was a great tragedy but, even more so, as it could so easily have been avoided.
In another letter to me, the same constituent says:
Our main concern is to do what we can to ensure that similar cases are not allowed to develop in the same tragic way
These are letters from good citizens, kindly, Christian folk who have tried to do their duty and who clearly feel that the authorities have let them down and that there has been a failure in the operation of the mental health services. I communicated with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27th December last, and when, despite a reminder, I had not received a substantive reply by last Wednesday, I feel it was appropriate to seek to bring this matter to the House.
I understand that before coming to live in my constituency, Mr. Silver had treatment at Cane Hill Hospital, Coulsdon, Surrey, and for a long period at the Henderson Hospital, Sutton, Surrey, which deals mainly with personality and psychopathic disorders. While living in my constituency, he was detained under Section 25 of the Mental Health Act from 6th August, 1965, to 3rd September, 1965. Subsequently, on 5th July, 1966, he was again admitted to Shenley

Hospital, but discharged himself on the same day. He was admitted to the hospital again on 4th November, 1966, and stayed there until 7th August, 1967. Four days after his discharge he was in trouble with the police and, as a result, he was admitted yet again to Shenley Hospital, this time under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, which says:
(1) If a constable finds in a place to which the public have access a person who appears to him to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons, remove that person to a place of safety within the meaning of the last foregoing section.
(2) A person removed to a place of safety under this section may be detained there for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours for the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a medical practitioner and to be interviewed by a mental welfare officer and of making any necessary arrangements for his treatment or care.
Mr. Silver apparently left the hospital against medical advice on 26th August, 1967. It would appear that the policeman—whose name I do not know—who apprehended Mr. Silver was a man of considerable perception. I hope that perhaps his superiors take note of this. It is perhaps a pity that the same perception was not also demonstrated at Shenley. Perhaps my hon. Friend can give a satisfactory explanation.
There followed after his discharge the melancholy events which I related at the beginning of my speech.
The House will be concerned about the circumstances of Mrs. Silver. I have not met her, but I understand that she is a lady of great fortitude and resolution. She has taken a post in another part of the country under a different name and is endeavouring to rebuild her life. The House will want to salute her courage and to wish her well, and it is my hope that she will be left undisturbed to try to forget the appalling experiences she has endured. The House will also expect from my hon. Friend an extremely full examination of this case.
I ask my hon. Friend three questions: Has there been any slackness on the part of the mental health authorities? If so, what administrative action does he propose to take? Thirdly, can anything specific be done to guard against the possibility of such a tragedy happening again?
To paraphrase the letter of one of my constituents, our main concern must be to see that similar cases are not allowed to develop in the same way.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I fully share the distress which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has so ably expressed concerning these tragic events and his sympathy for the wife and the tribute which he has paid to her. It is right that he should be raising this matter; it is one of great public concern and interest. It is also important that it should be put into its proper perspective and that blame should not unjustly be laid on the hospital at which John Silver had previously been a patient.
I express my apologies to my hon. Friend that the letter which he wrote to my right hon. Friend on 27th December has not received a substantive reply. This was because the substantial inquiries which had to be made of the Home Office and of the hospital management committee took some time, and we were just ready to reply to my hon. Friend's letter when he gave notice of this debate.
Perhaps I may fill in the background. The provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1959, are largely based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency, whose Report was published in 1957. One of the principles embodied in that Report was that patients suffering from mental disorder should, so far as possible, be able to enter and leave hospital with no more formality or restriction on liberty than patients with physical illness. Most patients in psychiatric hospitals are therefore treated and cared for on an informal basis and are free to leave hospital whenever they wish. But the need to protect the interests of the community is nevertheless recognised by the Act, and a number of compulsory powers of admission and detention were retained by it for use in circumstances which Parliament accepted would be appropriate, either in the interests of the patient's own health or safety, or for the protection of others.
Some of these powers, those under Part V of the Act, apply only where the person concerned has been convicted or

charged before a court with a criminal offence. There are also provisions, however, applicable to persons who have not been concerned with criminal proceedings. They include provisions for emergency removal for examination, for compulsory admission to hospital for observation and for compulsory admission to hospital for treatment. It is this last provision that we must look at particularly in relation to this case.
The relevant provision is in Section 26 of the Act, which provides that an application for admission for treatment may be made in respect of a patient on the grounds
that he is suffering from mental disorder, being—

(i) in the case of a patient of any age, mental illness or severe subnormality;
(ii) in the case of a patient under the age of 21 years, psychopathic disorder or sub-normality …"

A most important point about this provision is the distinction which it makes between mental illness and psychopathic disorder. In the case of mental illness the patient's age is immaterial. In the case of a psychopathic disorder, on the other hand, the application can be made only if the patient is under 21.
This distinction in Section 26 is not accidental, and the Royal Commission had a good deal to say on the subject. "Psychopathic disorder" is defined in Section 4 of the Act as
a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormality aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the patient, and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.
However, this definition does not provide an entirely objective criterion, and broadly the situation in 1957, and still today, is that the diagnosis of psychopathic disorder is not a precise clinical technique, nor is there any generally recognised effective form of medical treatment for it. It is the patient's behaviour which generally provides the main evidence of his mental condition, and such experience as has been gained on the treatment and training of the psychopath points to a greater likelihood of success if treatment or training is given during adolescence or early adult life. Some psychiatrists who attempt to treat psychopathy also regard the willing co-operation of the patient as of the utmost importance. It was against this


background, therefore, that the Royal Commission had to weigh up the risks to which a psychopath's anti-social actions can give rise against the other risks inherent in recommending for a somewhat ill-defined disorder a curtailment of liberty dictated by the interest of the public rather than of the patient. The opinion which the Royal Commission formed was as follows:
We . . consider it justifiable that psychopathic patients, as well as patients suffering from other forms of mental disorder, should be liable to compulsory admission to hospital at any age for a period not exceeding 28 days for the purpose of medical observation and preliminary treatment, if this is necessary for their own welfare or for the protection of others. If further hospital or community care is then recommended we hope that at least some patients will be willing to receive it on a voluntary basis.
Nevertheless,
… we do not consider that there is sufficient justification for special compulsory powers in relation to adult psychopathic patients except when their conduct is antisocial to the extent of constituting an offence against the criminal law.
This is the key point.
Section 26 of the Act reflects this recommendation, and I think it is fair to say that Parliament quite specifically accepted the recommendation since an amendment to remove the exclusion of adult psychopaths was withdrawn after the debate in the Standing Committee on 26th February, 1959.
The position is thus that in law, if a psychopathic patient is not already detained in hospital when he reaches the age of 21, he cannot subsequently be detained on this ground for more than a limited period for examination or observation unless he has committed an offence against the criminal law.
Turning now to this particular case, John Silver had been a patient in psychiatric hospitals on a number of occasions since 1960, and since 1965 he was ad-admitted four times to Shenley Hospital where he was diagnosed as suffering from psychopathic disorder. Two out of these four admissions were compulsory for observation or for examination, but on all four occasions he either initially was, or subsequently became, an informal patient, and was free to leave the hospital when he chose.
During the period of some three years from August, 1965, to September, 1968,

John Silver spent about 10½ months in Shenley. For more than twice that period therefore, including a period after his final discharge, he had lived outside the hospital without serious consequences.
I am, of course, aware of what has been said by members of the public, and quoted by my hon. Friend, about his outbursts, and those responsible for him at Shenley Hospital were well aware that his history included violence and threats of violence. My information is never-less that, although various incidents were reported to the police, there was no occasion on which these led to a criminal prosecution. Nor have I found any evidence that the medical authorities were at any time specifically warned of circumstances indicating that his outbursts were likely to lead to serious injury to members of his family. I also understand that it was after he finally left Shenley Hospital that the Divorce Court specifically gave John Silver access to his children and thus brought him into contact again with his family, giving rise to circumstances which had such tragic consequences.
My hon. Friend has referred to some of his constituents, and I respect and feel sad for them in the position in which they find themselves, but I am not persuaded that the facts of the case are such as to justify our saying in the light of what subsequently happened that even before the tragic events of September last year it was clear that John Silver was a person whose detention was essential in the interest of public safety. Nor am I persuaded that this case would justify our saying that the Royal Commission was wrong in its closely considered recommendation as to where the line should be drawn on compulsory detention of an adult psychopath. I can understand the view that someone must have been at fault when a mental patient is allowed to leave hospital and subsequently commits so dreadful a crime.
I hope that what I have said makes it clear what the limitations were on the courses open to the hospital authority even had there been grounds for suspecting a grave risk of injury by John Silver to his family or to others. Nothing I have discovered indicates that the hospital service was in any way at fault so far as John Silver's discharge was concerned.
The present position is that as a result of the court proceedings he is now detained in Broadmoor Hospital by means of an Order made under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act at Sussex Assizes on 19th December last. He is also subject, for an unlimited period, to the special restrictions set out in Section 65 of the Act. The chief effect of this is that he may now not be discharged, granted leave, or transferred to another hospital without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend is always most concerned to ensure that the safety of the public is not endangered by the release from hospital of a patient for whom he is responsible

and his consent is given only after full consideration of the possible risk to the public.
From the evidence which my hon. Friend has put before the House, there are factors in this case which I believe require further inquiry. There will be a further inquiry, and I shall report the outcome of this to my hon. Friend. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I think that he has done a service by raising this issue in the way that he did.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.